BV  664.5  .W37  1841 

Watson,  William. 

Who  are  Christ's  ministers? 


WHO  ARE  CHRIST'S  MINISTERS! 


WHO  ARE  CHRIST'S  MINISTERS? 


AN   INQUIRY 


SUGGESTED    BY    THE    RE-PUBLICATION    OF    A    TRACT, 


ENTITLED 


PLAIN    REASONS    FOR   RELYING    ON    PRESBYTERIAN  ORDINATION  I 

IN    A    LETTER  TO    A    FRIEND.       BY  LUTHER  HART,  LATE 

PASTOR    OF    THE    CONGREGATIONAL    CHURCH 

IN    PLYMOUTH,    CONNECTICUT." 


NEW  HAVEN: 
PRINTED   BY    STANLEY    8t   CHAPIN. 

1841. 


kRY  Of  PRll 


^cirl 


SEP     4    1992 


"  Almighty  God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  who 
hast  purchased  to  thyself  an  universal  Church, 
by  the  precious  blood  of  thy  dear  Son;  merci- 
fully look  upon  the. same,  and  so  guide  and 
govern  the  minds  of  thy  servants,  the  Bishops 
of  thy  flock,  that  they  may  lay  hands  suddenly 
on  no  man,  but  faithfully  and  wisely  make 
choice  of  fit  persons,  to  serve  in  the  s/icrcd  min- 
istry of  thy  Church.  And,  to  those  who  shall  be 
ordained  thereto,  give  thy  grace  and  heavenly 
benediction  ;  that  both  by  their  life  and  doctrine 
they  may  show  forth  thy  glory,  and  set  forward 
the  salvation  of  all  men,  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord."    Amen. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  object  of  the  following  pages  is,  to  furnish  common 
men  with  a  correct  answer  to  the  question  proposed  in  our 
title.  So  thoroughly  has  the  subject  of  the  Christian  Min- 
istry been  discussed  within  a  few  years  past,  that  the  pres- 
ent writer  cannot  hope  to  add  to  the  light  wliich  has  been 
thrown  on  it  by  previous  investigation.  And  here  he  would 
say,  by  way  of  apology  for  presenting  afresh  to  the  public, 
views  which  others  have  maintained  with  more  ability  than 
he  can  expect  to  do,  that  these  sentiments  would  have  re- 
mained unpublished  in  this  new  form,  had  not  a  pamphlet 
recently  appeared  among  us,  bearing  on  its  front  the  follow- 
ing title  and  description  of  its  origin  :  ^' Plain  Reasons  for 
relying  on  Presbyterian  Ordination,  in  a  Letter  to  a  Friend^ 
by  Luther  Hart,  late  Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church  in 
Plymouth,  Connecticut.  First  published  as  a  tract,  by  a  Doc- 
trinal Tract  Society,  in  the  year  1818."  The  re-publication 
of  this  tract,  induced  the  belief  in  many  minds,  that  the  in- 
terests of  truth  called  for  an  examination  of  its  sentiments. 
And  if  this  was  to  be  done,  the  duty  of  undertaking  it  plainly 
devolved  on  him  who  now  appears  as  its  Reviewer. 

To  answer  the  question  proposed  in  our  title,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  notice  other  theories  than  that  of  Mr.  Hart  ; 
but  they  will  be  summarily  disposed  of,  in  order  that  more 
space  may  be  left  for  examining  the  views  advanced  by  him. 
The  task  oi  reviewing  his  "  Letter  to  a  Friend,"  is  rendered 
somewhat  unpleasant  by  the  death  of  its  author.  Gladly 
would  he  who  pens  these  lines  have  been  excused  from  the 
duty  of  examining  the  work  of  one  departed  ;  for  it  is  difficult, 
I  may  say,  impossible  to  do  it,  without  saying  things  which, 
to  the  eye  of  friendship,  will,  at  least,  seem  severe  and  cruel. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  is  much  to  be  regretted,  that 
the  re-pribUcation  was  not,  like  the  original,  anonymous.     It 


is  not  here  denied  that  the  tract  needed  the  weight  of  a  name 
to  make  it  bear  with  due  force  ;  but  it  is  questionable  whether 
its  publication  was  judicious,  or  even  kind  to  the  memory 
of  the  author.  The  Reviewer  will  endeavor  to  deal  gently 
with  the  dead.  So  far  as  motive  is  concerned,  that  charity 
which  "  thinketh  no  evil"  shall  be  exercised  ;  but  his  opin- 
ions will  be  handled  with  only  so  much  ceremony  as  their 
worth  may  seem  to  demand — more  cannot  reasonably  be 
expected. 

And,  now,  let  me  earnestly  request  the  reader  not  to  enter 
on  the  perusal  of  the  following  pages,  until  he  has  prayed 
for  deliverance  from  prejudice.  Ask  God  to  give  you  can- 
dor, and  inspire  you  with  such  a  love  of  truth  as  shall  con- 
strain you  to  follow  wherever  it  may  be  seen  to  lead.  If  you 
be  not  sincerely  determined,  cost  what  it  may,  to  cleave  to 
that  ministry  which  shall  be  shown  to  be  the  scriptural  one, 
close  your  book,  and  go  to  your  closet.  First  get  from  God 
the  heart  to  embrace  whatever  truth  you  may  find  in  it— - 
then^  and  not  till  then,  may  you  proceed,  with  profit,  to  an 
examination  of  its  facts  and  arguments. 

Plymouth,  March  3,  1841. 


WHO  ARE  CHRIST'S  MINISTERS  ? 

The  question  proposed  in  our  title — "  Who  are  Christ's 
Ministers" — is  a  question  of  practical  religion.  It  is  an  in- 
quiry which  can  hardly  fail  to  be  made  by  a  person  who  is 
meditating  an  entrance  into  Christian  fellowship  and  com- 
munion ;  and  even  he  who  has  made  a  profession  of  his  faith 
can  seldom  look  around  on  the  various  teachers  of  religion, 
serving  at  opposing  altars,  without  agitating  the  question  in 
his  own  mind, — Are  all  these  Christ's  Ministers  1* 

The  conclusion  generally  arrived  at  is,  that,  probably,  all 
who  act  as  the  Saviour's  agents,  are  rightly  and  truly  his  am- 
bassadors. 

But  is  this  probable?  Look  at  the  Christian  system,  and 
when  you  see  that  its  author  is  owe,  his  truth  one,  and  his  way 
of  salvation  one — through  one  Christ,  and  by  one  baptism  into 
one  Spirit — does  it  seem  probable  that  so  important  a  feature 
of  this  system  as  the  ministry,  is  oi  diverse  forms  1  Fix  your 
eye  on  St.  Paul's  description  of  the  Church  ;  consider  its 
unity  ;  its  perfect  compactness  as  one  visible  body  ;  and  then 
say,  whether  a  multiform  ministry  can  consist  with  this  per- 
fect joining  together — whether  it  is  at  all  probable  that  this 
one  society  has  officers  variously  appointed '? 

Under  this  aspect  of  the  subject,  we  see  it  is  not  probable, 
that  all  the  diverse  forms  of  ministry  around  us  are  of  divine 
origin.  On  the  other  hand,  the  perfect  oneness  of  every 
other  part  of  the  Christian  system,  joined  to  the  fact,  that  we 
hear  nothing  in  the  Bible  of  different  kinds  of  ministry  in 
the  Church,  renders  it  highly  improbable  that  Christ  ever 
appointed  or  sanctioned  more  than  one.  And  this  improba- 
bility is  increased  by  the  circumstance,  that  we  cannot  admit 
the  validity  of  various  ministries,  pretending  to  derive  their 
authority  from  diverse  sources,  without  the  absurd  supposi- 
tion, that  Christ  has  entrusted  the  power  of  commissioning 
to  office  in  his  Church  to  different  and  promiscuous  hands. 

"  Let  it  here  be  distinctly  noticed,  that  ail,  except  a  few  ultra  Independants, 
agree,  that  no  one  can  have  authority  to  act  in  the  name  of  Christ,  as  his  Ambas- 
sador, unless  he  has  received  from  the  Saviour,  mediately  or  immediately,  an 
Official  Commission  : — Our  question,  therefore,  is,  not  as  to  who  bear  the  name 
of  ministers  of  Christ,  nor  is  it  as  to  who  preach  his  doctrines  ;  but  it  is  as  to  who 
have  really  been  commissioned  to  act  officially  in  his  name  in  spiritual  trans- 
actions ? 


This  is  not  credible.  God  is  a  lover  of  order.  His  other  ar- 
rangements every  where  exhibit  this  characteristic.  Anal- 
ogy, therefore,  leads  us  to  the  belief,  that  the  way  devised 
by  him,  for  investing  with  the  sacred  office,  must  be  distin- 
guished by  regularity  and  singleness. 

The  probability,  then,  lies  on  the  other  hand.  It  is  seen 
to  be  most  likely  that  there  has  been  but  one  kind  of  min- 
istry commissioned  by  the  Saviour.  And  this  probability  is 
greatly  strengthened — indeed  it  rises  almost  to  certainty,  in 
view  of  the  well  known  fact,  that  under  the  former  dispen- 
sation, the  ministry  of  the  Church,  appointed  by  God,  was 
one  in  kind,  and  no  more. 

It  may  be  denied  that  this  course  of  reasoning  demon- 
strates the  iynpossihility  of  there  being  more  than  one  kind  of 
ministry  in  the  Christian  Church;  but  it  must  be  admitted, 
that  it  does,  at  least,  show  it  to  be  improbable — nay,  it  must 
be  conceded  that  it  reduces  it  almost  to  a  certainty,  that 
the  Christian  ministry  is  one  and  not  multiform. 

Can  we  arrive  at  absolute  certainty  on  this  point — can  we 
ascertain  beyond  doubt,  whether  Christ  has  appointed  more 
than  one  kind  of  ministry  in  his  Church  ;  and  if  but  one,  can 
we  know  which  that  is  1  We  can.  How  1  By  taking  the 
theory  of  each,  and  in  turn,  subjecting  it  to  the  test  of  Scrip- 
ture, and,  if  need  be,  to  a  comparison  with  the  early  Church. 

The  schemes  of  ministry  advocated  among  us  are  four  in 
number  :  First,  there  is  the  no-ordination  scheme,  which 
holds  that  an  internal  call  is  all  that  is  needed,  and  insists 
that  any  one  has  a  right  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacra- 
ments who  jfee/5  that  he  ought  to  do  so.  The  second  is  the 
Congregational  scheme,  which,  as  originally  set  forth  and 
practiced  upon  in  New  England,  takes  the  ground  that  min- 
isterial ordination  is  not  essential — the  congregation  of  the 
Lord's  people  being  supposed  to  be  the  fountain  of  ecclesi- 
astical authority — and  that  a  person  set  apart  by  laymen,  de- 
puted by  their  own  body  to  act  in  their  behalf,  is  rightly  or- 
dained. The  third  is  the  Presbyterian,  which  rejects  lay^ 
ordination,  but  assumes  that  presbyters  have  power  to  set 
apart  to  the  sacred  office.  The  jTowr^/i  is  the  Episcopal,  which 
asserts,  that,  by  God's  arrangement,  there  are  three  orders  in 
the  Christian  Ministry,  Bishop,  Priest  and  Deacon — that  the 
power  of  ordination  has  been  placed  by  the  Almighty,  in  the 
hands  of  the  first  of  these  alone — that  this  power  is  intrans- 
ferrible  to  either  of  the  other  two — and,  therefore,  that  none 
can  have  authority  to  act  as  the  Saviour's  ambassadors  but 
such  as  have  been  set  apart  thereto  by  the  imposition  of  a 
Bishop's  hands. 


Such  are  the  opposing  claims  which  are  set  up.  Thus  Va- 
rious are  the  sources  from  which  authority  to  minister  in  sa-* 
cred  things  is  asserted  to  be  derived.  That  each  should  dif- 
fer so  widely  from  the  other,  and  yet  all  be  right,  is  not  cre- 
dible. We  must,  therefore,  try  these  conflicting  claims,  one 
by  one,  by  "  the  law  and  the  testimony."  In  this  way, 
alone,  can  we  ascertain,  to  our  satisfaction,  "  who  are 
Christ's  Ministers." 

THE    NO-ORDINATION    SCHEME. 

First  we  propose  to  test  the  claim  of  those  who  rely  en- 
tirely, on  an  internal  call,  and  who  insist  that  they  have  a 
right,  unordained,  to  act  authoritatively  in  Christ's  name. 
Ministers  of  this  description  are  seldom  seen  among  us,  but 
advocates  for  the  theory  under  consideration  are  nowhere 
wanting.  It  becomes  us,  therefore,  to  inquire  whether  the 
notion  of  self-appointme7it  to  the  ministry  is  sanctioned  by 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  Can  an  internal  suggestion,  alone, 
make  a  man  an  accredited  ambassador  of  God  ?  Is  there 
any  precedent  for  this  in  the  Bible  ? 

1.  In  the  history  concerning  Dathan  and  Abiram  we  find 
a  case  in  point  ;  but,  probably,  the  advocates  of  the  no-ordi- 
nation scheme  would  not  be  forward  to  plead  this  as  an  ex- 
ample. The  instance  of  king  Uzziah,  too,  might  be  cited  ; 
but,  unfortunately  for  the  friends  of  this  theory,  we  find  that 
his  punishment  for  assuming  the  duties  of  the  sacred  office 
unordained,  was  scarcely  less  fearful  than  that  of  the  two 
sons  of  Reuben.  Is  the  case  of  St.  Paul  claimed  as  an  in- 
stance of  a  ministry  being  acceptable  to  God  without  human 
ordination.  It  is  allowed.  But  before  the  unordained  min- 
ister can  plead  the  example  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
he  must,  like  him,  support  his  claim  to  a  direct  call  from 
God  by  working  miracles.  Let  the  teachers  who  repudiate 
ordination,  and  who  pretend  to  have  an  extraordinary  call, 
exhibit  such  proof  as  Paul  gave  of  a  right  to  act  authorita- 
tively in  the  Saviour's  name,  and  they  shall  be  acknowl- 
edged to  be  his  ministers.  This  is  not  too  much  to  demand. 
The  Scriptures  show  it  to  be  an  invariable  rule  of  the  Divine 
economy  to  give  to  every  ambassador,  immediately  appointed 
from  on  high,  such  credentials.  Therefore,  while  we  dare 
not  deny,  that  God  may  still  commission  in  this  way,  we  see 
it  to  be  our  privilege  to  demand  of  every  one,  who  claims  to 
be  thus  sent,  the  evidence  of  miracles,  and  in  case  he  fails 
to  present  this  proof,  it  is  clear  that  we  ate  bound  to  look 
upon  him  as  abase  impostor,  or,  at  best,  as  a  poor  misguided 
enthusiast. 


It  is  notorious  that  pretenders  to  this  sort  of  commission 
in  our  day,  do  not,  and  cannot,  show  the  requisite  creden- 
tials ;  therefore  we  must  conclude,  that  unordained  or  self- 
appointed  teachers  are  not  "  Ministers  of  Christ." 

2.  Some  such  teachers  may  have  great  abilities  ;  but  it 
should  be  remembered,  that  to  possess  human  talents,  or 
even  to  have  an  extensive  acquaintance  with  biblical  lore, 
is  another  and  very  different  thing  from  being  invested  with 
a  commission  from  Christ.  Many  a  Sunday  School  teacher 
is  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  but  his  knowledge  does  not 
make  him  a  minister.  A  traveller  in  a  foreign  country  may 
be  entirely  competent  to  act  there  as  the  ambassador  of  his 
own  government  ;  but  the  possession  of  ability  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  the  station  does  not  make  him  an  ambassador. 
So  be  a  man  ever  so  well  skilled  in  theology,  and  ever  so 
competent  to  handle  its  truths  ;  such  ability ,  though  very  ne- 
cessary to  one  holding  the  sacred  office,  is  not,  in  itself,  the 
least  warrant  for  one  unordained,  taking  upon  himself  the 
duties  of  that  office. 

3.  Some  of  these  self-appointed  teachers  may  be  very 
good  men.  But  something  more  than  goodness  is  necessary 
to  make  a  man  a  minister  of  Christ.  We  must  not  confound 
the  qualifications  for  an  office  with  the  office  itself.  Deep 
piety  is  a  thing  which  goes  far  to  fit  a  man  to  receive  the 
commission  of  an  ambassador  of  Christ ;  but  the  possession 
of  this  qualification  for  the  office  gives  no  authority  to  ex- 
ercise, unordained,  the  powers  of  an  appointed  agent  of  the 
Saviour. 

4.  The  labors  of  some  of  these  self-appointed  teachers 
may  be  successful.  But  this  circumstance  does  not,  as  is  so 
often  supposed,  prove  such  a  teacher  to  be  a  scriptural 
minister.  The  blessed  effects,  which  are  sometimes  seen  to 
be  produced  by  the  efforts  of  such  preachers,  only  show  that 
there  is  a  mighty  efficacy  in  the  word  of  God,  let  who  will 
handle  it.  The  success  of  one  of  these  teachers  proves  this, 
but  nothing  more. 

Be  it  so,  then,  that  some  of  these  unordained  preachers 
possess  eminent  ability  and  piety,  and  meet  with  great  suc- 
cess in  their  labors  ;  all  this  is  entirely  insufficient  to  show, 
that  they  are  acknowledged  by  Jesus  Christ  as  his  ambassa- 
dors. Before  any  one  can  be  recognized  as  empowered  to 
act  in  his  name,  he  must  be  able  to  show,  by  miracles,  that 
he  has  been  set  apart  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  or  pre- 
sent credentials  from  such  human  hands  as  the  Saviour  has 
authorized  to  commission  to  the  sacred  office.  On  this  point 
the  scriptures  are  plain.     We  read  that  the  seven  deacons 


Were  set  apart  by  those  to  whom  authority  to  perform  such 
acts  had  been  entrusted  ;  also,  it  is  recorded,  that  over  the 
Churches  which  apostles  planted  "they  ordained  them  el^ 
ders  in  every  city  ;"  and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  epistles  to 
Timothy  and  TituS  goes  to  show  that  this  was  designed  to  be 
a  permanent  rule  in  God's  house. 

The  scriptures,  then,  lend  no  countenance  to  this  ''  no- 
ordination  scheme.^'  'f  bey  teach  us  that  even  the  Saviour 
"  glorified  not  himself  io  be  made  an  high  priest,"  and  that 
it  is  his  will  that  all  who  wish  to  become  his  ministers 
should  follow  his  ejiample.  We  are  safe,  therefore,  in  con^ 
eluding,  that  those  who  go  forth  to  act  authoritatively  in 
the  Saviour's  name,  without  being  able  to  show  that  they 
have  been  commissioned  directly  from  God,  or  by  such  per- 
sons as  he  has  empowered  to  ordain  to  office  in  his  Church, 
run  without  being  sent,  and  are  not  to  be  accounted  or  re- 
garded as  "  Christ's  Ministers." 

THE    CONGREGATIONAL    SCHEMe. 

This  scheme — as  originally  stated  and  acted  on  in  New 
England — goes  upon  the  ground,  that  ministerial  ordination 
is  not  essential  ',  that  the  congregation  of  the  Lord's  people 
is  the  fountain  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  that  a  person 
set  apart  by  laymen,  acting  in  behalf  of  their  own  body,  is 
rightly  ordained. 

Few  words  w^ill  be  necessary  to  show  that  this  scheme  re^ 
ceives  no  countenance  from  Scripture.  We  do,  indeed,  read 
of  a  man  of  Mount  Ephraim  (Judges  xvii.)  that  consecrated 
one  of  his  sons,  who  became  his  priest  ;  but  the  sacred  histo- 
rian seems  to  have  felt  it  to  be  an  act  which  called  for  a  spe- 
cial apology  ;  for  he  immediately  adds,  "  In  those  days  there 
was  no  king  in  Israel,  but  every  man  did  that  which  was 
right  in  his  own  eyes."  The  Old  Testament  is  searched  in 
vain  for  any  better  precedent  than  this  for  the  scheme  under 
consideration  ;  and  where,  in  the  New,  shall  we  look  for 
any  thing  which  will  support  /a^-ordination  ?  Even  the 
seven  Deacons,  the  people  might  but  "  look  out,'^  none  less 
than  Apostles  might  set  them  apart  to  their  sacred  office. 
Not  a  case  can  be  cited  from  the  Scriptures,  nor  a  single  pas- 
sage pointed  out  in  them,  which  furnishes  the  least  warrant 
for  laymen  to  ordain.  Those,  therefore,  wdio  have  been  set 
apart  by  them,  cannot  be  regarded  as  Christ's  Ministers. 
And  yet  it  is  notorious  that  such  ordinations  were  originally 
recommended,  defended,  and  received  as  valid  by  the  New 
England  Congregationalists. 

2 


10 

In  proof  of  this  I  first  quote  from  one  of  their  standards, 
"The  Cambridge  Platform,"  which  contains  a  plan  of 
Church  discipline,  agreed  upon  by  the  elders  and  messengers 
of  Churches, — from  Connecticut,  as  well  as  other  parts, — 
assembled  in  Synod,  at  Cambridge  in  New  England,  in  the 
year  1649,  holds  the  following  language :  "  In  such  Churches 
where  there  are  no  elders,  imposition  of  hands  (in  ordina- 
tion) may  be  performed  by  some  of  the  brethren,  orderly 
chosen  by  the  Church  thereunto."  And  having  made  this 
declaration,  the  elders  and  messengers  go  on  to  argue  in  fa- 
vor of  /ar/-ordination,  in  the  following  terms  :  "  For  if  the 
people  may  elect  officers,  which  is  the  greater,  and  wherein 
the  substance  of  the  office  doth  consist,  they  may  much  more, 
(occasion  and  need  so  requiring,)  impose  hands  in  ordina- 
tion."* 

Thus  spake  the  pilgrim  fathers.  Such  are  the  unscriptural 
views  set  forth  by  them  in  solemn  council.  Well  might 
they  call  forth  reproof,  as  they  did,  from  the  Puritans  on  the 
other  side  of  the  water.  Says  Cotton  Mather — the  Congre- 
gationalists'  own  historian — "  It  was  objected  unto  our  New 
England  divines,  by  such  writers  as  the  sweet  spirited  Herle 
and  warm  spirited  Rutherford,  that  the  New  Testament  af- 
fords no  example  of  the  imposition  of  hands  by  the  people." 
But,  according  to  Mather,  the  pilgrims  defended  their 
course,  retorting  by  way  of  reply,  "that  the  New  Testament 
instances  not  the  imposition  of  hands  on  ordinary  pastors, 
by  any  ordinary  pastors  at  all."  And  what  they  had  the 
courage  so  boldly  to  set  forth,  and  so  stoutly  to  maintain, 
they  were  not  slow  to  practice. 

Hutchinson,  in  his  history  of  Massachusetts,  gives  a  full 
account  of  several  of  these  ^ay-ordinations.  According  to 
him,  there  was  one  at  Salem  in  1628  ;  another  at  Charles- 
town  in  1630  ;  another  at  Taunton  in  1640  ;  and  a  second  at 
Salem  in  1660.t  Dr.  Trumbull,  in  his  history  of  Connecti- 
cut tells  us  that  two  such  ordinations  were  held  in  succession 
at  Saybrook,  that  of  Mr.  Fitch  in  1646,  and  that  of  Mr. 
Buckingham  in  1660. J  So  again,  (says  Mr.  Bacon)  "in 
the  ordination  of  Mr.  Prudden  over  the  Milford  Church" — 
in  1640 — "  the  imposition  of  hands  was  by  the  brethren, 
though  it  was  done  at  New  Haven,  and  therefore,  doubtless, 
in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Davenport"  (the  minister.)  §  So 
again  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Chauncey  at  Stratford  (1665)  the 

•  Camb.  Plat.  c.  ix,  Uphara's  Ratio  Discp.  §  71. 

t  Hutchinson  Vol.  I.  pp.  18—369—375. 

%  Trumbull  vol.  i.,  p.  386,  ed.  1818.     ^  Bacon's  Hist.  Discourses,  p.  294. 


11 

imposition  of  hands  was  by  laymen.*  Besides  these  there  is 
the  case  of  Mr.  Allin  at  Dedham,  Massachusetts,  and  that  of 
Mr.  Townsend  at  Gorham,  Maine,  with  others  which  might 
be  mentioned.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  cite  them.  The  in- 
stances of  this  sort  of  ordination  among  the  early  Congre- 
gationalists  abound.  And  no  wonder;  when  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal council  had  authorized  it,  and  argued  in  its  favor,  the 
people  would  be  sure  to  improve  the  privilege,  and,  if  need 
be,  even  to  contend  for  it,  as  Trumbull  says  they  did,  on  the 
occasion  of  Mr.  Buckingham's  ordination  at  Saybrook. 
The  published  cases  are  probably  not  a  tithe  of  what  actu- 
ally occurred.  JLay-ordination  is  said  to  have  been  the  or- 
dinary practice  ;t  and  from  what  has  come  to  light,  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that,  had  we  access  to  the  records  of  the 
first  Congregational  societies  in  New  England,  it  would  be 
found  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  ordinations,  in  this  body, 
were,  for  more  than  half  a  century,  by  the  hands  of  laymen. 
And  now,  what  is  the  bearing  of  these  facts  upon  the 
question  of  the  validity  of  the  present  Congregational  min- 
istry 1  Since  most  of  the  existing  ministers  of  that  body 
have  descended  in  a  direct  line  from  the  people-made- 
preachers  of  the  seventeenth  century,  do  we  not  see,  in 
view  of  the  prevalence  of  /ay-ordination  in  that  age,  that  it 
makes  it  exceedingly  doubtful  whether,  at  the  present  day, 
there  is  one  of  the  Congregational  line,  who  is  any  thing 
more  or  better  than  a  /ay-ordained  minister. 

It  will  not  help  the  matter  to  say,  as  Mr.  Bacon  has  done, 
that  "  the  ministers  thus  set  apart  by  lay  committees  were 
men  previously  ordained  by  Bishops  in  England."  This  is 
denied,  as  regards  the  greater  part  of  them,  at  least;  and 
while  we  can  find  no  proof  that  so  much  as  one  of  the  ten, 
whose  cases  we  have  cited,  had  ever  received  Episcopal  or- 
dination, we  cannot  allow  ourselves  to  be  imposed  on,  by 
an  assumption  of  this  sort.  As  little  will  it  blind  us  to  the 
present  lay  character  of  the  Congregational  ministry  to 
plead,  that  it  is  a  long  time  since  the  people  were  allowed 
to  set  apart  to  the  sacred  office.  The  fact  is  so;  but  it  does 
not  aid  the  cause  in  behalf  of  which  it  is  urged.  For  since 
the  practice  of  lay  ordination  had  prevailed  in  New  England 
down  to  the  year  1660-70;  and  since,  in  consequence,  the 
ministry  had  become  people-made,  or  rather  not  made  at  all, 
inasmuch  as  being  set  apart  by  laymen,  the  minister  so  call- 
ed, could  be  himself  no  more  than  a  layman;  when  things 

*  Rev.  J.  Beach,  Address  to  the  People  of  N.  E.,  p.  19.  1749. 
t  Bacon,  p.  293,  and  Trumbull,  i.  285. 


12 

come  to  this  pass,  how  could  it  help  the  matter  to  decree, 
that  the  people  should  no  longer  impose  hands  in  ordina- 
tion? A  change  under  these  circumstances  could  avail 
nothing.  For  illustration  of  this  truth,  and  to  show  the 
pitiable  predicament  in  which  the  Congregationalisls  placed 
themselves  by  allowing  the  practice  of /ay-ordination,  take 
a  case:  If  one  of  your  neighbors,  a  layman,  should,  after 
the  example  of  the  man  of  Mount  Ephraim,  set  apart  one  of 
his  sons  to  be  his  priest;  we  can  see  that  that  son  of  his 
would  still  be  a  mere  layman;  consequently,  should  this  pre- 
tended minister  impose  hands  upon  a  third  person,  it  would 
be  only  another  Zai/-ordination;  and  so  in  the  case  of  the 
fourth,  the  fifth,  and  the  sixth;  let  the  line  continue  for  cen- 
turies, and  it  is  obvious  that  it  would  then  be  nothing  but  a 
Zai/-ordained  ministry.  Now  apply  this  to  the  case  in  hand: 
If — as  Mr.  Bacon  says — laymen  did,  as  a  general  thing,  set 
apart  to  the  sacred  office,  among  the  early  Congregational- 
isls of  New  England;  and  if,  in  consequence  of  the  total  in- 
efficacy  of  such  ordination,  those  appointed  to  be  teachers, 
must  themselves  still  have  remained  mere  lay -meni  must  we 
not  conclude,  as  in  the  case  supposed,  that  when  these  lay- 
preachers  proceeded  to  take  this  business,  of  separating  to 
the  ministry  into  their  own  hands,  their  act  could  have 
amounted  to  nothing  more  than  lay-ordination.  And,  surely, 
those  ordained  by  them  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  given 
any  thing  better  to  their  successors.  Thus,  this  ^ay-ordination 
of  the  Congregationalisls  has  been  handed  down,  through 
successive  generations  of  preachers  to  their  present  minis- 
ters. Lapse  of  time  has  not  affected  the  character  of  their  or- 
dination in  the  least;  what  it  was,  it  has  of  course  continued 
to  bp.  While  it  is  possible  that  there  may  be  here  and  there  a 
preacher  of  this  denomination  who  is  connected,  by  a  direct 
succession  of  ministerial  ordinations,  with  the  first  elders  of 
New  England;  it  is  perfectly  certain,  that  the  vast  naajority 
of  them  are  the  successors  of  the  people-made-ministers  of 
the  seventeei|th  century;  and,  therefore,  have  nothing  but 
/ay-ordination. 

Such  being  the  case;  it  being  so  uncertain  whether  any 
particular  Congregational  minister  of  the  New  England  line, 
can  justly  lay  claim  to  any  better  commission  to  preach  the 
Gospel  than  laymen  can  give;  did  it  not  become  Mr.  Hart  to 
phow,  that  his  own  ordination  had  not  come  to  him  from  this 
unscriptural  source,  before  proceeding  to  argue  upon  such 
principles  as  he  has  assumed,  in  his  "Letter  to  a  friend?*' 
What  right  had  he — what  right  has  any  Congregational  min- 
ister  to    proceed   to   tpike    his    stand  on  the  presbyterian 


13 

ground,  without  first  proving  that  he  has  received  Presbyte- 
rian ordination.  In  view  of  the  doubtful  character  of  their 
commission,  this  may  fairly  be  demanded.  And  we  may  say 
that  Mr.  Hart  was  in  duty  bound  to  go  to  work,  and,  (to  use 
an  expression  of  his  own)  trace  up  his  "  ecclesiastical  ped- 
igree," before  taking  a  single  step  in  his  defence  of  the  pres- 
hyterian  scheme . 

Something  more  than  bare  assertion  is  necessary  to  con- 
vince us  that  all  Congregational  ministers  may  justly  claim 
to  have  presbyterian  ordination.  While  the  recorded  in- 
stances of  /aj/-ordination  which  we  have  proved  to  have  oc- 
curred among  them,  stand  undisputable  and  incontrovertible, 
and  while  these  are  allowed,  by  their  own  writers  to  be  only 
a  sample  of  the  general  practice,  we  must  believe  that,  at 
least  a  vast  majority  of  the  present  preachers  of  the  Con- 
gregationalists  are  nothing  more  than  people-made-minis- 
ters. It  is  vain  to  plead  that  the  cases  cited  are  few.  When 
it  is  remembered,  that  there  was,  at  the  time  they  occurred,  at 
most  but  a  small  number  of  ministers  in  the  land,  it  is  readily 
seen  that  these  instances  are  enough  to  make  us  doubt 
whether  any  particular  preacher  of  this  line,  has  any  thing 
more  than  /cy-ordination.  I  need  no  other  argument  than 
that  which  Mr.  Hart  has  employed  in  reference  to  this  very 
subject  of  ministerial  succession,*  to  show  that  these  in- 
stances are  sufficient  to  destroy  all  confidence  in  the  presby- 
terial  character  of  the  ministry  of  the  Congregationalists. 
^'  No  matter  if  only  ten  (ministers)  were  thus  ordained;  the 
contamination  *  *  *  *  having  been  imparted 
(two  hundred)  years  ago,  has  had  a  long  time  to  diffuse 
itself,  and  doubtless  has  diffused  itself  so  extensively  from 
(minister)  to  (minister)  that  not  a  single  (pastor)  in  (New 
England)  can  prove  that  he  has  escaped  the  infection.'' 

On  his  own  principle,  therefore,  Mr.  Hart  was,  I  repeat, 
bound  to  show  that  he  himself  had  escaped  the  lay -ordina- 
tion-" infection,"  before  taking  a  single  step  in  the  argu- 
ment contained  in  his  "  Letter  to  a  friend."  If  ten  in- 
stances of  invalid  ordination  are  enough  to  destroy  all  con- 
fidence in  any  ministerial  succession,  as  Mr.  H.  alledges, 
then  by  his  own  decision,  the  claim  of  Congregational  min- 
isters to  a  Presbyterian  origin  cannot  be  made  good.  And 
though  every  one  may  not  feel  this  argument  to  be  so  con- 
clusive as  the  author  of  "  the  Letter"  did;  yet  the  ten  cases 
of  lay-imposition  which  I  have  cited,  must  at  least  unsettle, 
in  every  mind,  all  belief  in  the  validity  of  the  Congrega- 
tional ministry. 

*  Page  48  of  his  Letter  to  a  friend. 


14 

Under  the  circumstances,  then;  we  see  that  consistency 
required  Mr.  H.  either  to  defend  Zay-ordination,  or  to  prove 
that  the  present  Congregational  ministry  may  rightly  claim  a 
ministerial  succession.  The  former  he  dared  not  attempt; 
the  latter  he  chose  to  pass  over.  Without  a  word  of 
explanation  or  apology,  he  takes  the  Presbyterian  ground. 
Thither  we  must  follow  him,  and,  by  trying  that  scheme 
of  ordination  by  "  the  law  and  the  testimony,"  see  whether 
he  has  much  bettered  his  cause  by  assuming  this  position. 
But  before  leaving  the  present  scheme,  let  us  recapit- 
ulate the  several  points  which  we  have  settled.  It  has 
been  shown,  (1)  that  lay-ordination  receives  no  countenance 
from  scripture;  (2)  that,  still,  the  pilgrim  fathers  recom- 
mended such  ordinations,  and  extensively  practiced  them; 
(3)  that,  as  a  consequence,  no  Congregational  minister  of 
the  present  day  can  be  certain  that  he  has  any  thing  more  or 
better  than  this  same  unscriptural  ordination;  and  (4)  that 
Mr.  Hart  was,  on  his  own  principle,  bound  to  show  that  he 
and  his  brother  ministers,  had  escaped  this  lay  infection,  be- 
fore he  had  a  right  to  proceed  to  the  defence  of  Presbyterian 
ordination.  With  these  facts  borne  in  mind,  we  pass  to 
the  next  division  of  our  subject. 

THE    PRESBYTERIAN    SCHEME. 

This  scheme,  as  we  have  said,  rejects  '  /ay-ordination'  as 
utterly  unwarranted;  but  assumes,  that  Presbyters  have  the 
power,  and  that  by  divine  right,  to  set  apart  to  the  sacred 
office;  consequently,  as  we  cannot  fail  to  see,  a  regular,  un- 
broken succession  is  all  important,  nay,  absolutely  indispen- 
sable, to  the  carrying  out  of  this  theory;  Presbyters  must  be 
invariably  ordained  by  Presbyters,  else  there  is  a  total 
failure. 

On  this  ground  stand  those  who  properly  bear  the  name  of 
Presbyterians;  Methodists,  whose  ministry  being' derived 
from  Wesley,  himself  a  Presbyter,  cannot  be  other  than 
Presbyterian;  and  other  bodies  of  Christians  of  various 
names. 

In  proceeding  to  examine  this  scheme  of  Ministry,  I  shall 
take  up  'Hhe  Reasons"  which  have  been  urged  in  its  favor 
by  Mr.  Hart  in  his  "Letter  to  a  Friend"  on  this  subject; 
and  as  this  "  Letter"  has  been  greatly  relied  on  by  those 
who  count  themselves  Presbyterians,  its  reasons  may  be 
regarded  as  the  best  that  can  be  offered  in  support  of  their 
theory.  Still  it  contains  nothing  that  is  new,  and  on  this 
account  it  is  the  better  suited  to  our  purpose;  since  a  review 


15 

of  it  will,  in  effect,  be  an  examination  of  the  popular  argu- 
ments of  the  day  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 

The  course  which  Mr.  Hart  has  taken  to  show  that  those 
ordained  by  Presbyters  are  ministers  of  Christ,  is  as  follows: 
He  starts  with  the  assumption  that  "  there  are  no  officers  in 
the  Church  superior  to  ordinary  pastors."  p.  3.  This  posi- 
tion he  labors  to  establish  by  bringing  forward  twelve  objec- 
tions against  Episcopacy.  Having  devoted  twenty  pages 
to  the  consideration  of  these  objections,  and  labored  to  make 
it  appear  that  God  has  set  no  superior  order  of  ministers  in 
his  Church;  he  next  asserts  that  "in  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles, Presbyters  were  expressly  directed  to  ordain."  p.  23. 
Next  he  takes  the  ground  "  that  Presbyters  or  common 
pastors  did  ordain,  in  Apostolic  times."  p.  28.  From  this 
point  in  his  argument  he  very  awkwardly  passes  back  to  the 
giving  of  the  Apostolic  commission,  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,20.) 
and  insists,  not  in  the  Avay  of  inference  from  the  instances 
of  Presbyterian  ordination  which  he  supposes  himself  to 
have  shown,  but  for  the  most  part  in  the  way  of  mere  asser-- 
tion,  that  that  commission,  in  all  its  plenitude,  was  intended 
for  every  Gospel  minister,  p.  31.  His  next  position  is,  that 
"  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  are  successors  of  the  Apostles." 
p.  32.  Had  the  preceding  proposition  been  sustained  this 
would  have  followed  as  a  consequence;  or,  had  it  been 
made  to  appear,  that  "common  pastors  did  ordain  in  Apos- 
tolic times,"  it  might  fairly  have  been  urged,  as  an  inference, 
that  "all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  are  the  Apostles'  succes- 
sors," for  if  they  may  execute  this  highest  function  of  the 
ministry,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  succeed  to  its 
highest  rank.  But  Mr.  H.  carefully  avoids  the  mention  of 
any  such  consequences,  as  though  he  doubted  whether  he 
had  made  out  either  his  cases  of  ordination,  or  the  right  of 
all  ministers  to  the  full  Apostolic  commission,  strong  enough 
to  warrant  an  allusion  to  them;  and  endeavors  to  show  that 
this  full  commission  has  been  derived  to  every  common 
pastor,  by  a  mode  of  reasoning  much  more  circuitous  than  it 
was  necessary  for  him  to  take,  supposing  the  previous  steps 
of  his  argument  to  be  warrantable  and  right. 

Such  is  the  outline  of  his  course  of  reasoning,  so  far  as  it 
has  to  do  with  Scripture.  From  it  he  passes  to  the  Fathers; 
but  in  passing,  he  gives  what  he  calls  a  reason  for  adhering 
to  the  Presbyterian  scheme,  which  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know 
where  to  class,  or  how  to  characterize.  It  is  set  down  in 
the  following  terms:  "I  rely  on  Presbyterian  ordination  to 
avoid  the  necessity  of  considering  those  ordinations  invalid, 
which    are    performed  by   the    Bishops    of  the   Episcopal 


16 

Church."  We  are  at  a  loss  to  see  any  argument  in  favor  di* 
Presbyterian  ordination  in  this  "reason."  Probably  it  was 
thrown  in  merely  to  save  abruptness  in  transition  from  the 
ground  of  the  Bible  to  that  of  History.  Certainly  there  was 
something  wanted  to  throw  in  at  this  point;  for  by  Mr.  H.'s 
own  showing)  there  is  a  chasm  here  two  centuries  wide,  in 
the  evidence  for  Presbyterian  ordination.  '^  The  Fathers," 
says  he  "  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  say  nothing  on 
the  subject."  p.  35.  From  later  writers  he  quotes  detached 
sentences,  which,  unexamined,  would  seem  to  favor  the 
Presbyterian  scheme.  Having  done  what  he  could  in  this 
way,  he  takes  another  step,  and  asserts,  that  "  from  the  time 
of  the  earlier  Fathers,  down  to  the  Reformation  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  ordinations  were  often  performed  by  pres- 
byters." p.  38.  The  instances  cited  look  very  well, 
unexamined.  He  next  attempts  to  show  that  "  we  are 
indebted  for  the  Reformation  and  all  its  blessings,  under 
God,  to  Presbyterian  ordination."  Will  history  and  facts 
show  this  to  be  so.  He  next  asserts  that  "  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination  was  not  denied  in  England  for  more 
than  half  a  century  after  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
was  established."  p.  42.  "  That  such  ordination  is  con- 
sidered valid  by  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  public  acts 
of  her  king  and  Parliament."  p.  45.  That  the  Episcopal- 
ians of  this  country  receive,  as  valid,  the  baptisms  adminis- 
tered by  Presbyterian  ministers,  p.  46.  These  asserted 
concessions  are  urged  as  so  many  "  reasons  for  relying  on 
Presbyterian  ordination;"  with  how  much  justice  or  reason 
remains  to  be  seen.  Two  additional  reasons  for  adhering 
to  his  favorite  scheme,  clothed  with  more  apparent  charity 
than  real  force,  are  pressed  by  the  author  in  conclusion:  one 
asserting  that  "to  abandon  Presbyterian  ordination,  would 
be  to  unchurch  nearly  one  half  of  Europe,  and  nineteen- 
twentieths  of  the  United  States  of  America;"  p.  46:  while 
the  other  affirms  that  "to  deny  Presbyterian  ordination 
would  be  to  shake  the  foundation  of  the  whole  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church"!  p.  47. 

Such  is  a  full  and  fair  statement  of  the  course  pursued, 
and  of  the  arguments  urged  by  Mr.  H.  in  defense  of  the 
Presbyterian  scheme.  We  will  now  give  each  of  his 
"  Reasons"  a  candid  examination,  so  far  at  least,  as  they 
may  deserve  it.  Our  object  is  to  get  at  the  truth:  if  it  lie 
here;  if  the  Presbyterian  form  of  Ministry  be  that  which 
Christ  hath  appointed,  may  God  help  us,  one  and  all,  to  see 
it  to  be  so,  and  to  embrace  it — cost  what  it  may. 


17 

In  examining  Mr.  Hart's  "reasons,"  we  shall  take  the 
liberty  to  begin  with  the  last,  and  so  go  back  to  the  first: 
We  propose  to  ascend  the  stream  of  Presbyterianism,  and 
see  whether  it  can  be  traced  to  an  Apostolic  source. 

I.  The  first  "  reason"  for  relying  on  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation which  we  are  to  examine,  is  the  asserted  fact,  that 
"  to  deny  its  validity  would  be  to  shake  the  foundation  of 
the  whole  Protestant  Episcopal  Church."*  The  proof  that 
such  must  be  the  consequence  of  a  denial  of  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination  lies,  Mr.  H.  tells  us,  in  the  circum- 
stance that  we  are  "  very  expressly  informed  by  Bede,  in  his 
famous  Ecclesiastical  History,"  "  That  at  the  request  of  Os- 
wald, king  of  Northumberland,  certain  Presbyters  came  (in 
the  seventh  century)  from  Scotland  into  England  and  or- 
dained Bishops;"  thus,  it  is  said,  the  British  Episcopal  suc- 
cession became  vitiated.  From  this  conclusion  it  is  argued, 
that  the  Church  of  England,  and  her  daughter,  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States,  cannot  be  sure  of  having  any 
thing  better  than  Presbyterian  Ordination — and  hence,  a 
regard  for  their  safety  furnishes  a  "  reason"  for  relying  on 
such  ordination. 

But  there  are  two  objections  to  this  "  reason"  being 
admitted  as  proof  of  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 

Objection  1.  In  the  first  place,  the  "  reason"  here  urged 
is  groundless — the  asserted  facts  on  which  it  is  pretended  to 
be  based  have  no  existence.  To  show  that  this  is  so,  we 
will  particularize:  A  destitution  of  Bishops,  which  is 
alledged  as  the  cause  of  ordainers  being  sent  from  Scotland 
into  England,  could  not  have  existed;  for  by  Bede's  own 
showing,!  there  was  an  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  at  this 
very  time,  and  also  a  Bishop  of  York;  the  See  of  the  latter, 
be  it  observed,  lying  within  Northumberland  itself.  Nor  is 
it  said  by  the  venerable  historian  that  Presbyters  were  sent. 
That  two  ordainers,  Aidan  and  Finnan,  were  sent,  the  one 
the  successor  of  the  other,  (not  "  in  the  year  668,"  but  the 
latest  as  early  as  A.  D.  652)  is  certain.  But  Bede,  as 
Mr.  H.  might  have  known,  had  he  gone  to  the  work  of  this 
Father,  does  not  say  they  w^ere  Presbyters;  he,  himself  calls 
them  Bishops,  in  the  distinctive  Episcopal  sense.  This 
can  be  made  to  appear:  in  B.  iii.,  c.  3,  he  says:  Oswald 
sent  to  the  Scottish  rulers  desiring  them  to   ^en&  Bishops ',% 

*  Page  47.  +  B.  TL,  cc.  9,  15,  16,  18. 

X  The  true  reason  why  Oswald  sent  for  ordainers,  while  he  had  one  if  not  more 
Bishops  in  his  own  kingdom,  was  because  llie  Scottish  clergy  held  the  same 
views  in  regard  to  the  time  of  keeping  Easter  with  him  and  his  people :  in  this  the 
Northumhrians  had  uol  yet  come  to  think  with  the  Saxon  clergy;  hence  their 
desire  for  others. 

3 


18 

that  they  sent  Aidan;  and  that  the  Bishop  [Aidan]  coming 
to  the  king,  had  his  Episcopal  seat  in  Lindis-farn.  A.  D.  635. 
Further:  in  B.  iii.,  c.  6,  17,  he  says  expressly,  "  Finnan 
succeeded  him  [Aidan]  in  the  Episcopate.'"  A.  D.  652. 

Now,  it  can  be  proved  Ihat  the  phrases  Bishop,  Episcopal, 
and  Episcopate,  are  used  by  Bede  in  the  sense  attached  to 
them  by  modern  Episcopalians:  thus,  in  his  works,  B.  ii.,  c. 
19,  we  find  the  following,  which  is  the  address  of  a  letter 
written  by  John,  Pope  of  Rome,  A.  D.  640;  about  the  time, 
be  it  observed,  of  the  sending  of  Aidan  and  Finnan:  "  Most 
dearly  beloved  and  most  holy  Tomianus,  Columbanus,  Cro- 
manus,  Dinnaus,  and  Baithanus,  Bishops  (Episcopis); 
Cromanus,  Ernianochus,  Laistranus,  Scellamus  and  Sege- 
mus,  Presbyters;  Saranus  and  other  Doctors  or  Abbotts  of  the 
Scotts,"  &c.  This  shows  that  in  Scotland,  at  the  time 
Aidan  and  Finnan  were  sent  thence,  a  distinction  was  recog- 
nized betM^een  Bishops  and  Presbyters ;  and  further,  it  is 
obvious  that  Bede  was  acquainted  with  this  fact.  Who 
then  can  doubt  that,  when  this  writer  calls  these  two  ordain- 
ers  Bishops,  and  speaks  of  their  Episcopacy^  he  means  to 
distinguish  them  from  Presbyters  ? 

But  it  will  be  asked,  does  not  Bede,  as  cited  by  Mr.  Hart's 
authorities,  assert  that  both  Aidan  and  Finnan  were,  them- 
selves, ordained  by  mere  Presbyters'?  Bede  says  no  such 
thing:  his  testimony  is,  that  they  were  chosen  by  members  of 
the  monastery  of  Columbanus.  That  there  were  Bishops 
distinctively  so  called,  in  the  island,  and  even  among  the 
monks,  we  learn  from  Bede,  B.  iii.,  c  4,  and  the  "Ulster 
Annals:"  and  as  it  is  certain,  that  in  this  age  it  was  the  rule 
for  Bishops  to  ordain:  unless  the  case  under  consideration 
can  be  proved  to  be  an  exception,  there  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that  Aidan  and  Finnan  were  consecrated  to  the 
Episcopate  by  Bishops  proper. 

In  this  view  of  the  case,  how  unmeaning  appear-all  Mr. 
H.'s  inferences.  This  ground  of  his  fears  for  the  Episcopal 
Church,  has,  we  see,  vanished  "  like  the  baseless  fabric 
of  a  vision,  leaving  not  a  wreck  behind;"  and  the  basis 
being  gone,  there  must  have  vanished  with  it  whatever  of 
a  "  reason"  for  Presbyterian  ordination  could  have  been 
grounded  on  it.     But — 

Objection  2.  It  may  be  denied  that  this  reason  for  relying 
on  Presbyterian  ordination  could  be  any  evidence  of  its 
validity,  even  were  it  true  that  Aidan  and  Finnan  were  mere 
Presbyters.  Suppose  it  proved,  which  it  cannot  be,  that 
these  ordainers  were  only  common  pastors,  and  that  by  their 
means  "  the  Church  of  England,  and  her  daughter,  the  Episr 


19 

copal  Church  of  America  have  lost  the  succession  of 
Bishops;  will  it  follow  that  Presbyterian  ordination  is  valid? 
As  well  might  it  be  argued  that  the  sickness  of  one  man 
proves  another  to  be  in  health.  Could  the  Episcopal  min- 
istry be  shown  to  have  become  Presbyterian,  this  would  not 
prove  the  latter  to  be  that  which  God  hath  appointed.  How- 
ever true  it  may  be,  never  can  it  be  made  to  appear,  in  this 
way,  that  those  ordained  by  Presbyters  are  Christ's 
ministers. 

Having  disposed  of  this  "  reason,"  I  pass  back  to  the 
next  head,  leaving  to  the  autliorof  "  a  Letter  to  a  Friend," 
the  credit  of  the  discovery,  that  a  schismatic  Church,  which 
Rome  herself  is  in  England,  could,  by  her  act  of  excomuni- 
cation,  take  from  clergy,  unconvicted  of  any  crime  against 
the  laws  of  God's  house,  the  sacred  orders  she  might 
have  given.* 

II.  We  are  told  by  Mr.  H.,  p.  46,  that  "not  to  rely  on 
Presbyterian  ordination  would  be  to  unchurch  nearly  one 
half  of  Europe,  and  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  United  States 
of  America;"  and  thisis  urged  as  a  "  reason"  for  adhering  to 
this  ordination,  and  as  evidence  of  its  validity. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  matter  in  hand.  How 
does  it  help  to  prove  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordinationl 
Does  it  furnish  so  much  as  the  least  "  rea^o?i"  for  relying 
on  it? 

It  might  be  urged  against  the  argument  under  considera- 
tion, that  it  borrows  half  its  seeming  force  from  exaggerated 
mis-statement;  it  is  not  true,  that  any  thing  like  such  a  pro- 
portion of  the  Christian  world  are  disconnected  from  an 
Episcopal  Ministry,  as  Mr.  H.'s  representation  might  lead 
us  to  suppose.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  demonstrable,  that 
eighteen-twentieths  of  all  Christendom  are  in  communion 
with  this  ministry.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  enter  upon  the 
proof  of  it;  for  even  were  it  true  that  a  denial  of  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  ordination  must  unchurch  a  yet  larger  pro- 
portion of  the  Christian  world  than  that  alledged,  it  would 
not  follow  that  such  ordination  is  that  which  Christ  hath 
appointed:  therefore,  all  that  may  be  said  on  this  head  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose. 

*  But  it  is  not  here  conceded  that  the  English  Church  originally  received  its 
orders  from  Rome.  The  British  Church,  «5.ven  from  the  Apostolic  age,  was  in 
possession  of  the  Episcopate,  and  retained  it,  down  to  the  time  of  Rome's  first  in- 
terposition in  her  behalf.  And  even  Augustiiie,  who  consecrated  the  Bishops  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  Sees,  was  himself  not  consecrated  by  Gregory  the  Great,  who 
sent  him,  but  by  Virgilius,  the  twenty-fourth  Bi-^hop  of  Aries,  which  received  its 
Episcopate  from  the  Asiatic  source,  which  is  traceable  directly  to  Irensiis,  the 
disciple  of  Polycarp,  himself  the  disciple  of  St.  John. 


20 

III.  But,  agairij  we  are  told  p.  45,  that  there  is  a  "  reason"' 
seen  for  relying  on  Presbyterian  ordination  in  the  fact,  that 
persons  baptized  by  Presbyterian  ministers  are  not  required 
to  submit  to  re-baptism,  in  order  to  admission  to  fellowship 
and  communion  among  the  Episcopalians.  By  allowing 
such  baptisms  to  pass  as  sufficient,  it  is  argued  that  the  vali- 
dity of  the  ordination  of  those  who  administer  them,  is, 
thereby,  tacitly  acknowledged. 

But  were  this  all  so,  what  would  it  amount  to?  Can  a 
concession  of  this  sort  prove  the  validity  of  any  kind  of 
ordination?  But  what  is  more  fatal  to  this  argument,  no 
such  concession  is  made:  the  cases  in  question  are 
received,  not  as  ministerial,  but  as  Zay-baptisms.  The 
present  argument  calls  for  neither  a  defense  nor  explanation 
of  this  practice.  It  is  enough  simply  to  state  the  fact,  that, 
in  all  such  instances,  the  persons  are  allowed  to  participate 
in  the  Holy  Communion  on  the  ground  of  /a?/-baptism,  to 
show,  that  by  this  practice  no  concession  is  made  in  favor 
of  Presbyterian  ordination;  and,  consequently,  that  no 
"  reason"  can  here  be  found  for  "  relying"  on  it. 

IV.  Passing  back  to  Mr.  Hart's  eleventh  head  we  find 
another  alledged  concession  urged  in  support  of  his  favorite 
scheme.  Presbyterian  ordination  should  be  relied  on,  it  is 
said,  because  the  Church  of  England  has  admitted  its 
validity  by  the  public  acts  of  her  king  and  parliament.  In 
support  of  this  position,  Mr.  Wells  is  cited  to  prove  that 
soon  after  the  Restoration,  A.  D.  1661,  an  act  was  passed, 
confirming  the  right  of  Presbyterian  ministers  to  places  in 
the  English  Church  which  they  then  held.  I  can  find  the 
record  of  no  such  law;  and  there  is  good  reason  to  believe, 
Mr.  Wells'  statement  incorrect;  for,  it  is  notorious  that  in 
A.  D.  1662,  the  famous  Uniformity  Act  was  passed,  which 
deprived  all  officiating  ministers  of  their  places,  who  had 
not  received,  and  who  refused  to  seek  for,  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation.* If  the  alledged  Act  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  min- 
isters was  ever  passed,  which  is  exceedingly  questionable, 
it  was  too  soon  and  decisively  repealed,  to  be  urged  as  a 
concession  on  the  part  of  the  king  and  parliament;  for  by 
the  Act  of  1662,  the  ordination  of  such  ministers  was  most 
plainly  condemned. 

But,  again,  it  is  said,  that  in  the  55th  Canon  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church,  the  Presbyterian  establishment  of  Scotland  is 
acknowledged  to  be  "a  true  sister  Church."  This  is  not 
so:  to  make   this  consistent  with  other  enactments  of  the 

•  Mosheim  Vol.  III.,  p.  485. 


Si 

same  period,  we  must  understand  it  to  speak  of  none  other 
than  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  Scotland  and  Ireland.  It 
is  these  and  none  other  that  the  Canon  declares  to  be  true 
sister  Churches. 

But  even  were  it  otherwise;  could  it  be  shown  that  "the 
public  acts  of  the  king  and  parliament"  make  the  asserted 
concessions,  it  would  furnish  no  proof  of  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination,  and  but  a  very  miserable  reason  for 
relying  on  it.  This  anxiety  to  show  that  somebody  has  said 
that  it  is  valid,  begets  in  the  mind  of  an  inquirer  a  suspicion 
that  there  must  be  alack  of  clear  and  positive  testimony  in 
its  favor. 

V.  At  pp.  42,  43,  44,  other  alledged  concessions  are 
appealed  to.  A  book  entitled  "  A  Necessary  Erudition  for  a 
Christian  Man,"  published  A.  D.  1543,  is  represented  by 
Mr.  H.,  as  containing  the  views  of  the  Church  of  England 
reformed,  and  is  quoted  from  to  show,  that  that  Church  in 
her  purest  days,  after  emerging  from  the  darkness  of  Papal 
night,  held  that  a  Presbyter  has  an  equal  right  with  a  Bishop 
to  ordain.  Had  Mr.  H.  ever  seen  this  book,  or  informed 
himself  in  regard  to  its  contents,  he  could  never  have  used  it 
for  the  purpose  he  has:  it  is  not  a  Protestant,  but  a  Romish 
book.  The  men  who  made  it  finally  became  Reformers. 
But  I  need  mention  but  one  fact  to  make  it  appear  that  in 
1543  they  were  essentially  Romish  in  their  views :  in  this  very 
book,  they  maintain  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and 
every  other  of  the  errors  of  the  then  Papal  Church,  save, 
that  of  the  Pope's  supremacy.  This,  therefore,  is  not  the 
book  from  which  to  show  us  what  were  the  views  of  the 
Church  of  England  reformed;  and  the  advocate  of  Presby- 
terian ordination  who  quotes  from  it  in  support  of  his  theory, 
should  know,  that  in  so  doing,  he  calls  in  Rome  to  his  aid. 
This  will  not  do. 

2.  But  again,  we  are  told  at  p.  43,  that  the  early  practice 
of  the  English  Church,  was  in  perfect  conformity  with  the 
opinion  that  Presbyterian  ordination  is  valid.  But  the  in- 
stances adduced  in  proof,  do  not  sustain  the  position.  The 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Grindal,  who  licensed  a  person 
that  had  received  only  Presbyterian  ordination,  was  himself 
suspended  for  his  irregular  proceedings.*  John  Knox,  who 
is  represented  by  Mr.  H.  as  a  Presbyterian  minister  while 
acting  as  Chaplain  to  Edward  VI.,  had  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion;! and  it  is  equally   untrue  that  Peter  Martyr,  Martin 

•  Collier's  Ecc.  Hist.  Vol.  II ,  pp.  571,  579. 

+  Rob.   Scot,   Vol.  I.,  p.  238.     Biog.  Univers.  Vol.  XXII.,  p.  499. 


22 

Bucer,  and  P.  Fagius,  the  foreigners,  were  allowed  to  enjoy 
preferments  in  the  Church,  while  they  had  nothing  more 
than  Presbyterian  ordination;  the  last  two  were  never  ad- 
mitted to  any  ecclesiastical  benefice,  but  only  to  academical 
preferments,  and  the  first  might  well  be  suffered  to  perform 
ministerial  duties,  since  he  had  been  Episcopally  ordained 
before  becoming  a  Reformer.* 

Thus,  with  perfect  ease,  we  are  able  to  vindicate  the 
Church  of  England  from  the  charge  of  admitting,  in  her 
practice,  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination;  conse- 
quently, that  scheme  is  shown  to  derive  no  support  from 
this  source. 

3.  At  pp.  42,  43,  assertions  are  made  respecting  the 
opinions  of  some  of  the  Reformers,  as  to  the  right  of  Pres- 
byters to  ordain,  and  as  to  a  change  of  views  in  the  English 
Church,  on  this  subject,  of  which  nothing  less  can  be  said 
than  that  they  are  utterly  absurd  and  entirely  false.  Let 
any  one  read  "  The  Preface"  to  the  ordination  services  in 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  which  declares  that  "  from  the 
Apostles'  times  there  have  been  *  *  *  i^  Christ's 
Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  and  *  *  that 
no  man  shall  be  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said  functions 
except  he  *  *  *  hath  had  Episcopal  consecration 
or  ordination;"  and  then  say  whether  Cranmer  and  his  asso- 
ciates, its  composers,  can,  without  absurdity,  be  claimed  to 
have  been  Presbyterians  in  sentiment.  And  how  dared  Mr. 
H.  to  say,  that  it  was  "  the  united  voice  of  Episcopalians  in 
England,  till  the  time  of  Bancroft,  that  the  Scriptures  make 
no  distinction  between  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  and  that 
Diocesan  Bishops  are  creatures  of  the  crown,"  when  nearly 
forty  years  previous  to  that  time,  the  above  language  quoted 
from  "  The  Preface"  to  the  Ordinal,  which  declares  the 
direct  contrary,-  had  been  set  forth  as  the  faith  of  the 
Church.  Surely  the  cause  must  be  a  weak  one  which  can 
need  misrepresentations  of  this  sort  to  sustain  it:  misrepre- 
sentation it  is,  though  made,  as  we  trust,  in  ignorance;  for 
whatever  may  be  true  of  the  private  opinion  of  individual 
members  of  the  English  Church  upon  this  subject;  never  can 
it  be  shown  that  the  views  of  that  Church,  as  expressed  in  her 
standards,  and  as  held  by  the  great  body  of  her  divines  and 
people,  were  ever  in  any  way  different,  on  this  point,  from 
those  now  held  by  Episcopalians.  The  latter  have  not 
departed  from  the  opinion  and  practice    of  their    fathers: 

*  Enc  Am.  Vol.  VIIL,  p.  312. 


23 

what  the  one  now  hold,  the  other  of  yore  maintained.  Else- 
where, then,  than  to  the  opinions  and  practice  of  the  early 
English  Church  the  Presbyterian  must  look  for  countenance 
and  support  for  his  theory. 

VI.  Under  the  ninth  head  of  this  "Letter  to  a  Friend," 
we  find  another  argument  in  favor  of  the  scheme  he  advo- 
cates, quite  as  weak,  and,  if  possible,  more  inapposite  than 
the  last.  The  author  informs  us  that  "  we  are  indebted  for 
the  Reformation  and  all  its  blessings  to  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation"! But  is  this  made  to  appear?  Is  it  proved,  or  any 
thing  like  if?  What  did  Mr.  H.  mean  by  saying  "the 
blessed  Reformation  could  not  have  taken  place  without 
Presbyterian  ordination"?  Would  he  have  us  understand 
that  Martin  Luther  could  not  have  "  burst  from  his  mo- 
nastic cell"  without  Presbyterian  ordination?  No.  Mr.  H. 
knew  that  this  Reformer  and  all  the  others;  who  were 
ministers,  were  set  apart  to  their  sacred  office  by  Episcopal 
hands.  How,  then,  are  we  indebted  to  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation for  the  Reformation?  Is  it  meant  that  the  cause 
could  not' have  been  carried  forward  without  resort  to  this 
mode  of  ordination?  That  is  what  has  never  been  proved. 
In  England,  we  know  the  work  was  carried  through  with- 
out its  help.  And,  though  it  was  more  difficult  for  the 
Protestants  to  procure  the  services  of  Bishops  in  the  coun- 
tries on  the  continent;  yet,  it  is  perfectly  certain,  they  might 
with  sufficient  pains  have  obtained  them;  and  so  have 
reformed  the  Church,  in  those  parts,  without  the  aid  of 
Presbyterian  ordination. 

It  is  not  true,  then,  that  there  could  have  been  no  Refor- 
mation without  having  resort  to  this  way  of  making  min- 
isters; nor  is  it  true,  in  fact,  that  we  are  indebted  to 
Presbyterian  ordination  for  all  the  blessings  which  that 
glorious  era  brought  along  with  it;  since  a  large  part  of  the 
Church  did  reform  without  such  ordination.  Hence,  small 
"  reason"  is  here  seen  for  relying  on  it. 

It  is  at  this  point — the  period  of  the  Reformation — that 
Episcopalians  declare  Presbyterian  ordination  to  have  had 
its  beginning;  they  insist  that  the  stream  can  be  traced  no 
higher;  that  not  a  single  clear  case  of  it  can  be  shown  to 
have  occurred  previous  to  those  times.  The  contrary,  how- 
ever, is  asserted.  Presbyterians  contend  that  they  can  trace 
up  their  ordination  to  Apostolic  times,  and  show  it  to  be 
such  as  Christ  has  appointed.  Our  business  at  present  is, 
to  see  whether  this  can  be  done.  Let  us  then  proceed  to 
examine  the  pretended  evidence  of  it,  as  presented  by  Mrl  H. ; 
remembering,  that  if  this  kind  of  ordination  cannot  be  traced 


24 

higher  than  the  Reformation;  nay,  if  it  cannot  be  shown  to 
be  such  as  was  directed  by  the  Saviour,  and  practiced  by 
his  Apostles,  we  must  conclude  that  those  set  apart  in 
this  manner  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  commissioned  by 
Christ. 

VII.  With  a  view  to  show  that  the  theory  under  exami- 
nation is  primi^tve,  Mr.  H.  tells  us,  p.  38,  that  "from  the 
time  of  the  earlier  Fathers,  down  to  the  Reformation  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  ordinations  were  often  performed  by 
Presbyters."  But  what  are  the  cases  alledged  in  its  support. 

1.  His  latest  instances  are  the  Hussites,  the  Wickliffites, 
and  the  Lollards.  Among  them,  he  says,  Presbyters  or  com- 
mon pastors  were  accustomed  to  set  apart  to  the  sacred 
office.  But  no  authorities  are  referred  to  in  support  of  this 
assertion.  And  after  looking  in  vain  for  any  testimony  to 
this  point,  I  am  satisfied  that,  though  it  may  be  said  it 
cannot  be  proved  that  Presbyterian  ordination  was  ever 
practiced  among  these  sects.  Fearlessly  might  an  Episco- 
palian challenge  his  opponent  to  cite  a  single  clear  instance 
of  it  as  occurring  in  their  practice.  And,  even  could  it  be 
shown  that  they  did  practice  it,  it  would  be  producing  a  case 
occurring  since  the  fourteenth  century,  and  therefore  too  late 
to  be  of  any  force. 

2.  His  next  instance,  and  I  may  say  his  first  which,  even 
in  appearance,  has  any  thing  of  pertinency,  is  that  of  the 
Waldenses.  Among  this  people,  who  dwelt  in  the  vallies  of 
Piedmont,  Presbyterian  ordination  is  said,  by  Mr.  H.  to  have 
been  practiced,  previous  to  the  Reformation.  But  he  gives 
no  proof  of  it;  nor  could  he.  The  Waldensean  Church  was 
clearly  Episcopal.  To  show  it  to  have  been  so,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  state,  that  it  is  the  testimony  of  Commenius,* 
the  only  Bishop  that  survived  the  Bohemian  persecution, 
that  they,  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  sent  three  of  their  minw- 
ters  to  be  consecrated  Bishops  by  the  Waldenses;  being 
satisfied  that  they  had  the  Episcopate.  Crantz  in  his  "  Jin- 
dent  History  of  the  Brethren,^^^  says  more  to  the  same  effect. 
So  much  for  the  Presbyterianism  of  the  Waldenses. 

3.  The  next  instance  cited  is  that  of  the  Scots.  But 
nothing  can  be  made  out  of  their  case  in  favor  of  the  scheme 
advocated  by  Mr.  Hart.  He  asserts  very  confidently,  it  is 
true,  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  originally  Presby- 
terian;"! but  he  does  not  prove  it.  No  writer  is  found  who 
says  that  Presbyters  ordained  among  the  Scots.  Still,  an 
effort  is  made  by  Mr.  H.  to  make  it  appear  that  Presbyters 

*  Cited  by  Dr.  Alix.  t  Page  28.  t  Page  39. 


25 

Vintst  have  ordained  there.  To  make  out  his  case,  he  first 
assumes  that  Christianity  was  introduced  into  Scotland  a^^ 
early  as  the  beginning  ol'  the  third  century;  next  he  states^ 
on  the  authority  of  Prosper  and  others,  that  no  Bishop,  came 
to  that  country  till  the  fifth  century;  having  thus  shown,  as 
he  supposed,  that  two  centuries  intervened  between  the  in- 
troduction of  Christianity  and  the  arrival  of  the  Bishop, 
Palladius;  and  finding  that  John  de  Fordus  aild  John  Major, 
say  that  there  were  monks  there  before  the  Bishop  came, 
he  infers  that  these  Presbyter-monks  must,  in  the  mean 
time,  have  done  the  ordaining. 

But  observe,  Mr.  H.  has  not  shown  that  "the  Christian 
Religion  was  introduced  into  Scotland,  about  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century."  This  was  essential  to  his  argument, 
but  receives  no  support  from  either  Fordus  or  Major:  they 
tell  us,  indeed,  that"  monks"  preached  there  before  Palla- 
dius came :  but  that  the  first  of  them  could  not  long  have 
preceded  him,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  system  of 
monkery  did  not  have  its  rise  till  the  fourth  century;  and 
even  then  it  was  for  some  time  confined  to  the  east^  so  that 
it  could  not  have  reached  Scotland  much  before  the  fifth 
centuryj  at  which  time  the  Bishop  came.  According,  then, 
to  the  showing  of  Mr.  Hart's  own  authorities,  no  such  time 
elapsed  between  the  coming  of  the  first  preachers  and  that 
of  the  Bishop  as  would  render  a  resort  to  Presbyterian 
ordination  necessary.  And  having  failed  to  show  any 
recorded  instance  of  such  ordination  in  Scotland,  the  asser- 
tion that  it  was  practiced  there,  is  wholly  gratuitous  and 
unwarranted. 

Wherever  Mr.  H.  finds  a  Church  which  has  not  a  Bishop 
actually  resident  with  it,  he  rushes  at  once  to  the  conclusion, 
that  there  must  be  Presbyterianism.  Thus  he  tells  us  that 
the  Gothic  Churches  had  been  seventy  years  without  a 
Bishop  when  Ulphilas  came  among  them;  and  then  asks^ 
"  how  could  those  Churches  live  so  long  if  they  had  no 
oflficers  qualified  to  ordain  ministers  for  them?"  Mr,  H. 
would  not  have  put  this  question  triumphantly,  as  he  sup- 
posed, had  he  remembered  that  the  Episcopal  Church  lived 
in  this  country  almost  twice  seventy  years  with  no  resident 
Bishop. 

4.  One  more  allegation  remains  under  this  head,  to  be 
examined.  We  are  told,  p.  38,  that  the  Council  of  Nice 
sanctioned  the  practice  of  Presbyterian  ordination  in  Egypt. 
In  proof  of  this,  a  quotation  is  made  from  the  Synodic  Epis-" 
tie,  which  that  venerable  body  addressed  to  the  Egyptian 
Church,  which,  as  it  stands  on  the  page  of  "  A  Letter  to  « 

4 


26 

Friend,"  represents  the  Council  as  allowing  that  Presbyters 
may  ordain.  But  the  Epistle  says  no  such  thing.  The 
phrase  ^^  have  authority  to  ordain  ministers,^^  italicised  by 
Mr.  H.,  p.  39,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  document.  Dr. 
Murdock,  the  translator  of  Mosheim,  himself  a  Congrega- 
tionalist,  renders  the  passage  quoted,  as  follows:  ^^ shall  have 
power  to  nominate  and  elect.^^*  Though  Mr.  H.  commences 
his  quotation  with  the  Latin  "  Hi  autem  qui,"  probably  he 
never  saw  a  Latin  copy  of  the  Epistle,  nor  one  in  its  Greek 
Original  in  his  life,  but  took  the  quotation  at  second  or  third 
hand,  and  was  thus  misled.  The  man  who  undertakes  to 
instruct  others  on  a  subject  of  "  vital  importance,"  has  no 
right  to  give  authorities  in  this  way.  Misrepresentation  of 
the  truth,  though  given  carelessly,  must  do  harm.  ,  I  am  led 
to  make  this  remark  in  view  of  the  fact,  that  in  this  instance 
the  adoption  of  one  error  has  led  the  author,  himself,  to  make 
another  misstatement,  in  immediate  connection  with  it.  For, 

2.  To  support  his  incorrect  representation  of  the  decision 
of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  he  makes  Ambrose,  a  writer  of  the 
fourth  century,  say,  that  "  in  Egypt,  Presbyters  ordain,  if  a 
Bishop  be  not  present."!  This  is  not  so.  The  Latin  word 
*'  con^ig'Tio,"  used  by  Ambrose,  cannot  be  rendered  "ordain." 
The  passage  quoted  from  him  is,  therefore,  distorted.  What 
are  an  author's  conclusions  worth,  when  his  authorities  are 
no  better  than  these? 

We  have  now  gone  over  with  all  the  alledged  instances 
of  Presbyterian  ordination,  between  "  the  sixteenth  century 
and  the  earlier  Fathers;"  a  period,  be  it  observed,  of  more 
than  a  thousand  years;  and  out  of  them  all,  it  is  found,  there 
is  not  so  much  as  one  clear  case.  This  does  not  look  much 
as  though  we  are  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion,  that  Presbyte- 
rian ordination  is  traceable  to  Apostolic  times.  But  let  us 
pass  back  to  the  next  point,  under  which  head  is  comprised 
all  that  remains  of  Mr.  Hart's  proofs  from  the  Fathers,  and 
see  whether  it  is  there  shown  that  Presbyterian  ordination 
was  practiced  in  the  age  which  immediately  succeeded  the 
Apostolic. 

VIIL  Under  this,  his  seventh  head,  Mr.  H.  labors  to  show 
that  Presbyterian  ordination  was  practiced  in  the  Church  of 
Alexandria,  from  the  days  of  St.  Mark,  its  founder,  for  the 
space  of  two  or  three  centuries.  But  by  what  testimony 
does  he  attempt  to  prove  this?  Jerome,  a  Father  of  the 
fourth,  and  Eutychius  a  writer,  not  of  "the  sixth"  but  of 
the  tenth   century,    are    cited.     Such    are  his   authorities: 

»  Mosheim  Vol.  I.,  p.  351,  Note.  t  Page  39. 


27 

rather  wide  apart,  in  respect  to  time,  one  would  think,  and 
the  latter,  as  it  appears  to  us,  decidedly  too  far  off  to  be  a 
competent  witness  to  a  matter  of  fact. 

But  to  their  testimony.  What  is  it  *?  And,  first,  that  of 
Jerome.  In  writing  to  Evagrius,*  he  takes  occasion  to 
animadvert  on  the  practice  of  some  who  were  disposed  to 
elevate  Deacons  above  Presbyters;  and  with  a  view  to  mag- 
nify the  office  of  the  latter,  and  thus  to  make  it  appear  that 
no  such  precedence  should  be  given;  he  states,  not  of  his 
own  knowledge,  but  that  somebody  says,  that,  "  In  the 
See  of  Alexandria,  from  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist,  to  Herac- 
las  and  Dionysius,  Bishops;  the  Presbyters  always  elected 
one  from  among  themselves,  and  raising  him  to  a  higher 
rank,  they  called  him  Bishop;  much  as  an  army  chooses  an 
Emperor,  or  as  Deacons  elect  one  from  among  themselves, 
and  call  him  Arch-Deacon:  [this  right  of  election  being  con- 
ceded to  the  Presbyters  alone,  proves  their  superiority  to 
the  Deacons,  argues  Jerome;  and  desiring  to  elevate  the 
office  of  the  former  as  much  as  possible,  he  immediately 
adds]  for  what  can  a  Bishop  do  that  a  Presbyter  may  not 
do  EXCEPT  Ordination."  Such  is  Jerome's  testimony. 
And  does  it  prove  Presbyterian  ordination?  Is  it  not  plainly 
opposed  to  if?  Mr.  Hart,  availing  himself  of  one  of  the  arts 
of  polemics,  has  left  off  the  last  sentence  of  the  passage, 
beginning  with  the  word  ^'  For,"  and  by  transferring  it  to 
another  place,  has  made  this  Father  bear  a  different  testi- 
mony from  that  which  he  evidently  does  when  the  passage 
is  presented  entire,  as  above.  Jerome  does,  indeed,  bear 
witness  to  the  fact,  that  a  peculiar  privilege,  touching  the 
election  of  their  Patriarch  was  enjoyed  by  the  Presbyters  of 
Alexandria,   but  that  they  ordained,  he    as  plainly  denies. 

2.  As  to  Eutychius,  it  matters  little  what  he  says;  for  even 
did  he  sustain  the  character  of  a  correct  narrator  of  facts, 
the  distance  of  time  at  which  he  lived  from  the  transactions 
under  consideration,  w^ould  make  his  testimony  of  small 
consequence.  But  he  is  notoriously  incorrect,  as  any  one 
may  see,  by  looking  into  Pearson's  Vindicia?,!  where  his 
blunders  are  collected.  His  statements  in  the  very  case 
under  consideration  are  contradicted  by  two  writers  of  his 
own  age:  while  he  represents  things  in  such  a  way  as  to 
convey  the  idea  that  Presbyters  alone  consecrated  the  Patri- 
arch of  Alexandria;  both  Severus  and  Metaphrastes 
expressly  state,  that  Bishops  proper,  had  a  hand  in  his  ele' 
vation.     So,  in  substance,  says  Mr.  H.'s  earlier  and  better 

*  Or  Evangel  urn.  t  Pages  32(),   327. 


28 

witness,  Jerome:  according  to  him,  ordination  is  an  act 
which  Presbyters  cannot  perform;  therefore  his  testimony 
is,  virtually,  that  Bishops  consecrated  the  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria.  The  representation  of  Eutychius,  then,  must 
be  put  with  his  other  errors,  unless  his  language  admits  of 
such  a  construction,*  as  will  allow  us  to  take  him  as  meaning 
that  the  Presbyters  of  Alexandria  simply  elected  the  person 
who  was  to  be  placed  over  them:  this  was  a  peculiar 
privilege  of  these  Presbyters.  And  that  this  was  all  which 
they  did  is  rendered  quite  certain,  by  the  fact,  that  in  a 
Council  held  at  Alexandria,  A.  D.  339,  it  was  decreed  that 
all  persons  ordained  by  one  Colluthus,  who  pretended  to  be 
a  Bishop,  but  who  had  been  ascertained  to  be  only  a  Pres- 
byter, should  be  regarded  as  mere  laymen. f  For  it  is  not  to 
be  believed  that  a  Church,  which  thus  denied  the  power  of 
a  Presbyter  to  ordain  to  his  ow^n  order,  should,  only  fourteen 
years  before,  A.  D.  325,  the  time  stated,  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  allowing  these  very  persons  to  consecrate  its 
Patriarch.  In  this  conclusion  we  are  perfectly  confirmed 
by  the  well  authenticated  additional  fact,  that  in  the  Alex- 
andrian Church,  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  Canons  was 
acknowledged,  which  teach  that  a  Bishop  only  may  ordain. 
The  early  practice,  then,  of  this  Church  does  not  furnish  a 
primitive  example  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  but  the  con- 
trary. And  unless  some  other  and  clearer  instances  of  it 
can  be  cited,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  testimony  of 
antiquity  is  in  no  degree  in  favor  of  this  scheme. 

Mr.  H.  had,  it  appears,  no  more  instances  to  adduce;  for 
we  have  seen  the  last  of  his  proofs  from  the  Fathers.  And 
now  after  having  followed  him  over  all  this  ground,  I  put  it 
to  the  reader — Have  we  found  one  clear  case  of  Presbyterian 
ordination  in  passing  upward  from  the  sixteenth  century? 
And  it  is  w^orthy  of  observation,  that  the  most  Mr.  H.  has 
attempted  to  prove  in  favor  of  this  scheme  is,  not  the  current 
of  practice,  which  is  all  along  tacitly  acknowledged  to  be 
against  it,  but  mere  exceptions — a  few  isolated  cases  here 
and  there:  and  even  these  he  has  failed  to  make  out.  Also, 
the  fact  should  not  pass  unnoticed,  that  he  has  not  ventured 
to  go  higher  for  an  authority  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation than  Jerome,  and  that  it  is  distinctly  acknowledged, 
p.  37,  that  in  the  age  of  this  very  Father,  Episcopacy 
universally  prevailed. 

True,  Mr.  H.  asserts  it  to  have  been  usurped.  But  Jerome 
says  no  such  thing:  indeed  he  maintains  the  very  opposite 

*  [As  it  certainly  does.]  t  Alhan.  Vol.  IJ.,  p.  732. 


29 

of  this.*  And  Mr.  H.  himself  confesses,  p.  35,  that  nothing 
any  way  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  can  be  found  in 
"the  Fathers  of  the  first  and  second  centuries."  Whether 
he  is  entirely  correct  in  saying  that  these  early  writers  bear 
witness  to  the  existence  of  no  other  particular  kind  of  ordi- 
nation, we  shall  see  in  the  proper  place.  Let  it  suffice  for 
the  present,  that  by  Mr.  Hart's  own  acknowledgment,  here 
are  two  centuries  immediately  succeeding  the  Apostolic  age 
— a  period  the  most  important  of  all,  that  of  inspiration  alone 
excepted— in  which  he  can  find  no  instances  of  Presbyterian 
ordination,  and  no  testimony  of  any  kind  in  its  favor. 

IX.  We  come  next,  passing  back,  to  Mr.  Hart's  sixth 
head,  under  which  nothing  is  found,  which  deserves  the 
name  of  either  proof  or  argument.  He  says:  "  I  rely  on 
Presbyterian  ordination  in  order  to  avoid  the  necessity  of 
considering  those  ordinations  invalid,  which  are  performed 
by  the  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 

This  sounds  charitable:  but  it  is,  at  best,  kindness  mis- 
applied; because  uncalled  for.  Episcopalians  are  in  no  such 
predicament  in  regard  to  a  title  to  a  scriptural  ministry,  as 
makes  them  proper  objects  of  solicitude.  On  the  contrary, 
they  are  so  circumstanced  in  this  respect,  that  let  what 
scheme  will  be  true,  they  are  certain  of  having  a  ministry. 
Upon  the  theory  of  "  No-Ordination"  or  "  Lay-Ordination," 
they  are  obviously  as  well  off  as  their  neighbors;  and  even 
were  Presbyterian  ordination  proved  to  be  divine,  they 
would  stand  in  need  of  no  commisseration,  since  it  is  con- 
fessed by  Mr.  H.  himself,  p.  34,  "it  must  be  admitted  that 
these  Bishops  [of  the  Episcopal  Church]  having  been 
ordained  themselves,  have  authority  to  ordain  others."  By 
his  own  showing,  then.  Episcopal  ordinations  are  sure — if 
not  on  their  own  ground,  yet  on  some  other — to  turn  out  to 
be  valid.  The  above  "  reason,"  then,  is  no  reason  "  for  rely- 
ing on  Presbyterian  ordination." 

'  His  words  are  as  follows  :  '■  It  was  decreed  throughout  (he  whole  world,  that 
one  be  elected,  who  should  be  put  over  the  rest  of  the  Presbyters."  And  accor- 
ding to  his  account,  this  was  done  in  the  very  first  age  :  for  he  expressly  says 
it  was,  "  after  some  began  to  consider  those  which  he  had  baptized  to  be  his'own, 
not  Christ's  ;"  and  when  "  by  fhe  instigation  of  the  devil,  parties  were  formed  in 
religion  and  it  was  said  by  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  1  of 
Cephas."  By  Jerome's  own  showing,  therefore.  Episcopacy  commenced — not 
by  MSwrpatioM,  but  by  appointment — in  the  Apostolic  age  itself ;  for  then  it  was, 
certainly,  that  this  identical  schism  appeared  which,  he  declares,  demanded  and 
caused  its  institution.  As  this  cannot  he  denied,  Mr.  H.  would  make  us  believe 
that  the  ministers,  thus  set  over  Presbyters,  still  remained,  in  all  essential 
respects,  on  a  level  with  them.  But  this  opinion  will  be  found  fully  discussed 
and  completely  refuted  in  the  following  pages  :— See  the  twelfth  head  and 
elsewhere. 


30 

The  equality  of  all  ministers  is  asserted  with  sufficient 
frequency  under  this  head;  and  we  are  told,  as  much  as  once, 
at  least,  that  the  office  of  Diocesan  Bishop  "  belongs  to  the 
same  species  of  human  manufacture  as  that  of  metropolitans 
and  popes."  It  will  be  soon  enough  for  us  to  believe  this, 
when  we  shall  have  seen  Presbyterianism  proved  to  be 
divine;  and  this  we  are  not  likely  to  do,  as  we  have  discov- 
ered no  instance  of  this  sort  of  ordination  in  ascending  from 
the  sixteenth  century.  But  let  us  see  what  can  be  further 
urged  in  its  behalf:  and  for  this  purpose  pass  we  now  to  the 
all  edged 

SCRIPTURE    PROOFS    OF  PRESBYTERIAN    ORDINATION. 

X.  Under  his  fourth  and  fifth  heads — which  we  will  con- 
sider in  connection,  and  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand — 
Mr.  H.  gives  us  the  Presbyterian  hypothesis.  No  instances 
of  Presbyterian  ordination,  nor  any  thing  which  will  bear  to 
be  called  proofs  of  it,  are  found  under  either  of  these  heads; 
nothing  is  met  with  here  but  scheming.  We  do  not  complain 
of  this.  The  author  of  "  A  Letter  to  a  Friend"  had  an 
undoubted  right  to  state  his  theory.  But  we  must  be  al- 
lowed the  liberty  of  examining  it,  and  of  seeing  for  our- 
selves how  well  it  squares  with  the  Scriptures.  This  we 
claim  as  our  right. 

The  Presbyterian  hypothesis,  as  stated  at  large  by  Mr. 
Hart,  assumes — (1)  That  all  the  powers  with  which  the  eleven 
were  clothed  by  the  commission,  Matthew  xxviii.  19,  20, 
were  designed  to  be  conveyed  to  every  minister  of  the  Gos- 
pel— that  these  powers  "  are  not  to  be  parcelled  out  some  to 
one  and  some  to  another" — that  the  commission  being 
*'  one,"  no  division  of  its  duties  could  have  been  intended; 
and  that,  therefore,  '•'  every  common  pastor  may  produce  it 
as  his  warrant,  to  invest  others  with  the  same  office  that  he 
himself  sustains."  pp.  31,  32.  (2)  Another  way  in  which 
Mr.  H.  arrives  at  this  conclusion  is  as  follows:  Jirst  it  is  as- 
sumed as  proved,  that  the  Apostles,  aside  from  their  inspir- 
ed character,  "  were  nothing  more  than  presbyters  or  eld- 
ers"; and  that  they  ''had  no  authority  to  ordain,  except 
as  it  was  vested  in  them  in  the  character  of  ordinary 
ministers,  p.  33,  then  comes  in  the  minor  proposition;  but 
they  "  certainly  had  authority  to  ordain,"  p.  32,  and  thus  the 
way  is  prepared  for  the  inference;  therefore  every  minister 
is  warranted  and  empowered  to  set  apart  to  the  sacred 
office.     Such  is  the  Presbyterian  hypothesis. 

As  an  unexamined  theory,  it  would  appear  passably  v/ell, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact — solemn  as  it  is  obvious — that  it  be- 


31 

gins  with  degrading  the  blessed  Apostles:  not  a  step  can  he 
taken,  it  seems,  towards  framing  this  scheme,  till  the  chosen 
twelve  are  brought  down,  in  point  of  ministerial  standing, 
to  the  level  of  common  pastors.  This,  as  it  appears  to  us, 
is  a  serious  objection  to  this  theory:  for  who  can  believe 
that  St.  Paul,  for  instance,  was  a  mere  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter, simply  equal  to  Mr.  Hart;  as  aside  from  his  uninspired 
character,  this  hypothesis  asserts  him  to  have  been?  I  re- 
peat; this  necessity  of  degrading  the  Apostles  in  order  to 
make  out  that  presbyters  have  a  right  to  ordain,  is  an  ob- 
jection which  every  Christian,  it  seems  to  us,  must  feel  to 
lie  heavily  against  this  scheme.  We  shall  not  stop  here  to 
show,  as  we  might,  that  the  process  is  entirely  unw^aranta- 
ble  by  which  Mr.  Hart  attempts  to  effect  this  leveling;  nor 
will  we  dwell  on  the  unfairness  and  inconsistency  which  he 
has  manifested,  in  first  representing  Episcopal  Bishops  as 
pretending  to  have  succeeded  to  the  inspired  part  of  the 
Apostolic  office;  and,  then,  claiming  for  common  pastors,- 
those  very  powers,  and  that  precise  kind  of  succession, 
which,  and  which  alone,  are  challenged  for  those  chief  min^ 
isters  who  are  ridiculed  and  censured  by  him  with  so  unspar- 
ing a  hand.  Had  we  time  and  space,  we  might  justly  ani- 
madvert at  length  vipon  the  tone  of  several  of  Mr.  Hart's 
remarks  under  his  fifth  head:  but  we  forbear,  through  fear 
of  diverting  attention  from  the  objectionable  feature  pointed 
out  in  the  scheme  which  he  defends.  We  could  find  fault 
with  its  advocate;  but  we  see  so  much  which  looks  suspi- 
cious in  the  theory  itself,  that  aside  from  any  considerations 
connected  with  the  manner  of  its  defense,  we  feel  warranted 
in  witholding  from  it  our  assent;  at  least,  till  we  shall  have 
had  opportunity  to  give  it  further  examination. 

There  is,  we  know,  another  and  very  different  hypothesis 
— the  Episcopal:  and  it  does  not  appear  to  us  that  there 
are  any  such  marks  of  infallibility  about  the  one  now  under 
consideration,  as  should  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  it  must 
certainly  be  right;  even  did  no  such  vital  objection  as  the 
above  weigh  against  it.  Indeed  it  seems  to  us  that  there  is 
too  little  explicitness  in  the  commission  in  question,  to  enable 
us  to  determine,  from  itself  alone,  what  scheme  of  ministry 
it  contemplates  and  enjoins.  Does  it  not  appear  to  the  read- 
er, that  there  is  need  of  some  inspired  commentary  on  this 
passage,  to  showus  just  what,  and  just  how  much  was  intend- 
ed by  it.  But  where  shall  we  look  for  the  desired  explanation'? 
I  answer,  inthe practice  of  those  to  whom  the  commission  was 
first  given.  It  is  a  maxim  with  legislators,  that  the  best 
comment  on  an  ancient  statute,  is  the  proceedings  under  it 


3^ 

in  the  times  immediately  succeeding  the  period  of  its  enact- 
ment. On  this  principle  we  must  go,  in  making  up  our 
minds  on  the  case  before  us:  in  no  way  can  we  come  to  a 
safe  conclusion  as  to  the  import  of  the  law  of  Christ,  laid 
down  in  the  commission,  Matthew  xxviii.  19,  20;  but  by  a 
reference  to  the  practice  of  the  eleven,  acting  under  it.  A 
record  of  their  practice  we  find  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  in  their  Epistles.  If  it  shall  appear,  upon  examination 
of  these  records,  that  the  Apostles,  acting  under  their  com- 
mission, did  in  fact  transfer  to  ordinary  pastors,  the  power 
of  ordination;  then  the  Presbyterian  hypothesis  will  be 
proved  to  be  the  true  one.  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  it  shall 
be  shown  that  they  did  not  confer  this  power  on  all  whom 
they  ordained,  but  reserved  it  to  be  entrusted  to  a  few 
among  many  ministers,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  conclude 
that  no  man  set  apart  by  the  hands  of  a  mere  Presbyter  cart 
be  an  ambassador  of  Christ, 

Let  us  then  bring  to  out  test,  the  Presbyterian  hypothe- 
sis, as  stated  by  Mr.  Hart.  No  good  reason  can  be  urged 
why  it  should  be  exempted  from  the  ordeal.  For  any  thing 
that  appears  to  the  contrary,  it  may  be  found  erroneous: 
for  all  that  is  said  about  the  commission  being  indivisible 
because  "  one"  is  of  no  force — -as  well  might  it  be  assert- 
ed^ that  the  President  of  the  United  States  cannot  give  any 
measure  of  authority  to  an  officer  under  him  without  com- 
municating to  him  all  the  powers  with  which  he,  himself,  is 
invested.  His  commission,  we  know,  is  "  one,"  and,  yet, 
others  receive  of  his  authority:  consequently,  a  division  of 
ministerial  power  is  a  thing  in  itself,  neither  impossible  nor 
absurd;  and  hence  it  follows  that  the  Presbyterian  theory  is 
hot,  necessarily,  the  true  one.  The  question,  therefore,  re- 
mains; was  it,  or  was  it  not,  the  mind  of  Christ  that  a  divis- 
ion of  ministerial  powers  should  be  made?  Again  I  say  there 
is  no  way  of  settling  this  point  but  by  a  reference  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Apostles  under  their  commission.  It  is  idle  to  plead 
that  there  could  be  no  need  of  a  distribution  of  the  powers  of 
that  commission:  the  question  is  not  what  seems  to  us  to 
have  been  best  for  Christ  to  do;  but  what  did  he  do  in  fact? 
Did  he  give  his  Apostles  to  understand  that  all  the  imin- 
spired  powers  he  conferred  on  them  were  to  be  transmitted 
to  every  minister  of  the  Gospel;  and  have  they  shown  that 
they  so  understood  Him  by  an  actual  bestowment  of  the 
power  of  ordination  on  common  pastors?  Is  there  any  evi- 
dence of  it?  Mr.  H.  says  there  is,  and  in  support  of  this 
position  he  asserts — 


33 

Xi.  Under  his  third  head,  that  "  common  pastors  did 
actually  ordain  in  several  recorded  instances  in  apostolic 
times."  p.  28.  If  this  can  be  shown,  it  must  be  confessed  to 
be  a  sufficiently  clear  intimation  of  the  will  of  Christ,  and  a 
decisive  proof  of  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination — 
let  us  but  see  Scriptural  practice  in  favor  of  this  scheme; 
and  it  shall  convince  us  that  the  construction  which  Mr.  H. 
has  put  on  the  commission  is  the  right  one.  This  is  the  evi- 
dence we  demand.  Proceed  we,  then,  to  an  examination  of 
the  alledged  Scripture  cases  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 

1.  The  first  instance  cited  as  an  example  of  such  ordina- 
tion, is  that  setting  apart  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  of  which  we 
have  the  following  account  in  Acts  xiii.  1,  2,  3.  "  Now 
there  was  in  the  Church  that  was  at  Antioch  certain 
prophets  and  teachers;  as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon  that  was 
called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Manaen  which  had 
been  brought  up  with  Herod  the  tetrarch,  and  Saul.  As 
they  ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost 
said,  separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  w^ork  where- 
unto  I  have  called  them.  And  when  they  had  fasted  and 
prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  on  them  they  sent  them  away.'^ 

Mr.  Hart  thinks  that  "  this  transaction,  so  plainly  stated 
by  St.  Luke,  in  all  its  circumstances,"  must  be  "  sufficient 
for  ever  to  shut  the  mouth  of  clamor  against  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination."  p.  29.  But  we  must  say — Mr. 
H.'s  confidence  notwithstanding — that  this  case  is  not  a 
clear  instance  of  such  ordination:  on  the  contrary  there  are 
insuperable  objections  to  his  view  of  it. 

It  plainly  appears  from  the  narrative  of  the  transaction 
itself,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  both  ministers  before 
receiving  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  which  it  speaks:  they  are 
expressly  numbered  among  "  the  prophets  and  teachers"* 
present;  and,  for  aught  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  theyy 
as  well  as  the  others,  had  been  there,  at  Antioch,  "  minis- 
tering to  the  Lord."  How  then  could  this  laying  on  of 
hands  be  a  Presbyterian  ordination,  when  the  subjects  of  it 
were  already  ministers:  to  insist,  as  Mr.  H.  does,  that  it  was 
such  an  ordination,  is  to  maintain,  upon  his  theory,  that  we 
are  here  solemnly  informed,  that  some  Presbyterian  minis- 
ters laid  hands  on  other  Presbyterian  ministers  for  the  pur- 
pose of  setting  them  apart  to  the  sacred  oflfice.  From  his 
premises  there  is  no  avoiding  this  absurd  conclusion  while 
it  is  plain  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  ministers  previous 
to  the  time  of  the  setting  apart  in  question:  and  it  is  abun- 
dantly evident  that  they  were  so — for,  in  addition  to  what  is 
said  in  the  narrative,  we  are  elsewhere  plainly  told  that  Paul 


34 

had  been  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel  long  before  this  occur- 
rence;* and  Barnabas  also;t  nay,  we  know  that  the  former, 
at  the  time  of  the  transaction  in  question,  had  been  an 
Apostle  many  years.  To  what,  we  ask,  would  Presbyte- 
rian ministers  ordain  such  persons'? 

Obviously,  this  transaction  was  not  a  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion. Nor  is  this  enough  to  say:  we  must  add,  it  was,  clearly 
no  ordmation  at  all;  but  merely  the  setting  apart  of  persons 
already  ordained  or  appointed  of  God,  to  a  special  mis- 
sionary work.  Let  any  one  read  onward  from  the  passage 
quoted  above,  to  Acts  xiv.  26,  and  he  will  be  satisfied  that 
this  is  so.  It  will  be  found  from  the  last  named  verse,  that, 
having  returned  from  their  journey,  "  the  work"  to  which 
Paul  and  Barnabas  were  "  separated,"  when  set. apart  at 
Antioch,  was  "  fulfilled."  This,  aside  from  the  fact  that 
they  were  ministers  before  the  transaction  in  question, 
makes  it  clear,  that  what  is  spoken  of  in  the  first  three 
verses  of  the  thirteenth  of  Acts,  was  not  an  ordination  of 
any  kind,  but  a  special  appointment  of  two  ministers  to  par- 
ticular missionary  duty,  by  designation  of  the  Spirit. 

This  Mr.  H.  might  have  learned  from  the  Presbyterian 
Doddridge,  had  he  consulted  him;  and,  indeed,  it  is  matter 
of  wonder,  how  so  gross  a  mistake  should  have  been  made 
by  the  author  of  "  A  Letter  to  a  Friend."  We  are  unwilling 
to  believe  it  any  thing  more  than  an  oversight;  for  had  he 
remembered  that  Paul  declares  himself  to  have  been  "aft 
Apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  and 
God  the  Father,"!  we  are  sure  he  would  never  have  dared 
to  speak  of  his  ordination  at  Antioch  as  he  has. 

One  case  is  disposed  of:  thus  far  we  find  no  instance  of 
ordination  by  "  common  pastors." 

2.  But  we  have  not  done,  says  the  advocate  of  Presbyte- 
rian ordination;  we  have  "  another  instance"  to  alledge; 
"  Timothy  was  ordained  by  Presbyters."  Well,  we  shall 
see.  (1)  As  inquirers  it  becomes  us  to  observe  here,  that 
unless  this  case  is  made  out  fairly,  clearly,  strongly,  indubi- 
tably, we  shall  be  obliged  to  conclude  that  the  Apostles 
never  gave  the  power  of  ordination  to  "  common  pastors:" 
for  no  instance  besides  this  is  so  much  as  alledged  from 
Scripture.  (2)  Also,  before  proceeding  to  the  examination 
of  this  case — the  only  one  in  the  whole  Bible  which  has  even 
the  appearance  of  a  Presbyterian  ordination — it  is  our  duty 
to  stop  a  moment  and  take  a  brief  survey  of  the  ground  we 
have  been  over,  that  we  may  get  a  just  idea  of  the  circum- 

»  Acts  ix.  20,  22,  27, 29.  t  Acts  xi.  22,  26.  \  Gal.  i.  1. 


35 

stances  under  which  we,  as  inquirers,  come  to  this  case  of 
Timothy;  so  that  we  may  carry  to  our  investigation  of  it,  a 
distinct  recollection  of  the  precise  point  to  be  settled,  and  a 
clear  understanding  as  to  how  much  must  be  proved  from  it, 
to  make  out  the  Presbyterian  claim: 

We  come  to  it  without  having  found  one  instance  of  such 
ordination,  since  we  began  to  ascend  from  the  sixteenth 
century:  we  come  to  it  with  the  confession  of  its  advocate, 
that  nothing  is  found  in  the  Fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries, 
which,  with  any  directness,  favors  it:  we  come  to  it,  after 
going  over  all  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures,  in  a  vain  search  for 
a  single  example  of  it  in  Apostolic  times.  Nay,  more,  we 
come  to  it  with,  at  least,  presumptive  and  negative  evidence 
against  it;  for  we  cannot  but  remember,  that  Matthias,  and 
the  seven  Deacons,  and  "  the  Elders"  that  were  ordained 
"  in  every  Church,"  were,  one  and  all,  set  apart  by  Apostolic 
hands. 

True,  it  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Hart,  that  the  Apostles, 
apart  from  their  inspired  character,  were,  themselves,  no 
more  than  common  pastors:  but  it  has  only  been  said;  it  has 
not  been  proved.  Therefore,  we  must  not  assume  it  to  be 
true.  To  do  so,  is  to  beg  the  question:  it  is  to  take  for  grant- 
ed what  is  denied.  Whether  the  Apostles  transferred  the 
whole  of  their  uninspired  powers  to  all  whom  they  ordained, 
and  thus  elevated  them  to  their  own  ministerial  standing; 
or  whether  they  retained  the  ordaining  power  in  their  own 
hands,  according  to  their  Master's  will,  and  thus  maintained 
a  ministerial  standing  above  the  Elders  whom  they  or- 
dained, is  the  very  point  in  dispute.  To  settle  this  question, 
is  the  business  which  we  have  now  in  hand.  Mr.  Hart  has 
alledged  that  "Presbyters" — mere  common  pastors — "did 
ordain  in  Apostolic  times;"  and  we  are  following  him  to  see 
if  he  proves  it.  This  he  has  not  yet  done.  But  one  case 
more  remains  to  be  considered:  and,  I  repeat,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, it  seems  to  me,  that  unless  this  ordination  be 
shown  to  have  been  by  Presbyters  alone — by  mere  Elders, 
without  Apostles;  Presbyterian  ordination  must  be  given  up 
as  unscriptural.  With  these  preliminaries  borne  in  mind 
we  are  ready  to  proceed  to  the  examination. 

The  case  stands  thus:  Paul  says  to  Timothy — "Neglect 
not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy, 
with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."*  This, 
says  Mr.  H.,  is  a  clear  instance  oi  Presbyterian  ordination; 
and,  at  first  hearing,  the  passage  may  strike  the  unpracticed 

*  1  Tim.  iv.  14. 


36 

ear,  as  the  record  of  such  an  instance.  But  this  view  will  not 
bear  examination.  All  that  there  is  in  it,  in  favor  of  this 
scheme,  is  the  mere  sotmd  of  the  word  "  Presbytery,'^  For  it 
is  exceedingly  doubtful  what  the  phrase,  "  tou  jyresbuterou,'' 
means  here.  Some  have  taken  it  to  be  the  name  of  the 
office  to  which  Timothy  was  ordained:  so  thought  Jerome, 
Ambrose,  and,  at  one  time,  Calvin.  Others  have  admitted 
*'  the  presbytery"  to  be  an  assembly,  but  yet  have  contended 
that  it  was  composed  entirely  of  Apostles:  this  was  the 
opinion  of  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Theophylact:  and 
no  Greek  scholar  will  deny,  that  an  assembly  of  Apostles, 
regarded  as  superior,  in  every  respect,  to  mere  elders,  might 
with  as  much  propriety  be  called  "a  Presbytery,"  as  though 
they  formed  but  a  body  of  common  pastors.  But,  not  to 
press  these  considerations  farther,  let  me  hasten  to  speak  of 
one  circumstance,  attending  this  ordination  of  Timothy, 
which,  upon  the  principles  we  have  laid  down  as  sound 
rules  to  govern  us  in  our  judgment  in  this  case,  is 
fatal  to  the  Presbyterian  scheme.  I  refer  to  what  St.  Paul 
says,  in  his  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  i.  6:  "Stir  up  the 
gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands." 
That  the  Apostle  here  refers  to  the  same  transaction  which 
is  alluded  to  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  1  Tim.  iv. 
14,  and  that  this  exhortation  shows  him  to  have  acted  at 
Timothy's  ordination,  is  asserted  or  admitted  by  Scott,  Dod- 
dridge, McKnight,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  all  the  other  com- 
mentators, without  an  exception.  To  say  that  this  laying  on 
of  the  Apostle's  hands  was  with  the  design  of  conferring 
miraculous  powers,  is  to  make  a  wholly  gratuitous  and  un- 
warranted assertion:  for  there  is  no  evidence  that  Timothy 
ever  possessed  such  powers.  The  only  fair  supposition  is, 
that  this  act  was  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  the  gift  of  the 
ministry;  and  this  circumstance  of  Paul's  presence  and  direct 
agency  in  this  transaction  is,  I  repeat,  fatal  to  the -.Presby- 
terian scheme.  Coming,  as  we  do,  to  this  alledged  instance 
in  favor  of  that  theory,  with  nothing  to  support  it;  with  no 
precept  or  command  enjoining  or  permitting  mere  Presbyters 
to  ordain;  with  no  previous  ascertained  instance  in  which 
they  had  acted  in  that  capacity;  and  with  the  notorious  fact 
staring  us  in  the  face,  that  in  all  the  previous  recorded  cases 
of  ordination,  Apostles,  and  Apostles  alone,  had  acted;  we 
needed — in  order  to  our  having  any  confidence  in  the  validity 
of  ordination  by  Presbyters — to  find  in  this  case  of  Timothy 
an  instance  in  which  common  pastors,  and  they  alone, 
took  part.  But,  we  are  told  that  an  Apostle  was  there, 
and    laid  on    hands.     Instead,  therefore,    of  begetting  in 


37 

us  confidence  in  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination, 
is  not  this  case  of  Timothy  directly  calculated  to  confirm  us 
in  the  belief,  that  no  ordinations  could  take  place  without 
the  presence  of  an  Apostle;  and  as  a  consequence,  that  mere 
Presbyters  had  not  then,  and  have  not  now,  the  power  to  set 
apart  to  the  sacred  office? 

If  the  other  individuals  composing  "the  presbytery," 
present  with  Paul  on  this  occasion,  were  Elders,  they  united 
with  him  byway  of  concurrence.  The  distinction  of  phra- 
seology— "  by  my  hands,"  and  "  with  *  *  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery,"  harmonizes  with  this  idea.  We  lay  no 
great  stress  on  the  fact  that  these  .different  prepositions  are 
used,  though  it  might  be  asserted,  that,  as  a  general  thing, 
the  former  is  employed,  in  accordance  with  its  primary 
meaning,  to  denote  the  efficient  cause,  while  the  latter  is 
almost  always  used  to  si^miy  mere  concurrence :  so  that  the 
Episcopalian  may,  at  least,  claim  that  the  phraseology  de- 
cidedly chimes  in  with,  and  favors  his  view  of  this  ordina- 
tion. But  "  the  whole  struggle"  is  not,  as  Mr.  Hart  would 
have  his  readers  believe,  "  between  the  two  little  words,  by 
and  wi7/i.;"  "the  struggle"  is,  between  the  claim  that  this 
ordination  of  Timothy  was  by  mere  Elders,  and  a  contrary 
view,  which  maintains  that  there  was  one  there,  without 
whose  presence  that  ordination  could  not  have  taken  place; 
and  who,  as  a  consequence,  must  have  been  superior  to  the 
"  common  pastors"  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers.  And 
now,  how  stands  the  first  of  these  claims?  Has  this  case 
been  made  out  to  be  a  Presbyterian  ordination?  When  we 
remember  that  an  Apostle  was  there;  one  of  that  number  who 
alone  had  done  all  the  recorded  ordaining  up  to  this  time;  and 
when  we  hear  him  assert  that  the  gift  conferred  in  that  par- 
ticular transaction  was  by  the  putting  on  of  his  hands; 
can  we  say,  that  there  is,  in  this  case,  any  thing  like  a  war- 
rant for  Presbyterian  ordination?  On  the  contrary,  does  it 
not  appear  evident,  that  up  to  the  time  which  covers  this 
instance,  the  Apostles  had  never  conferred  the  ordaining 
power  on  any  mere  Elders,  but  reserved  it  to  themselves; 
asserting  thereby,  as  doubtless  it  was  the  will  of  Christ  they 
should,  their  uninspired  ministerial  superiority?  Obviously 
this  is  so.  Thus  far,  therefore,  there  is  nothing  found  in 
the  Bible  which,  in  the  least,  supports  the  Presbyterian 
theory.  And,  as  there  are  no  more  instances  of  such  ordi- 
nation so  much  as  alledged  to  be  recorded  on  the  sacred 
page;  must  it  not  be  given  up,  as  unscriptural?  Can  any 
thing  more  be  said  in  its  favor?     Mr.  Hart  says  there  can. 


38 

XII.  "Presbyters,"  he  says,  "were,  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  expressly  directed  to  ordain."  p.  23.  But  this 
claim  strikes  us  feebly,  after  seeing,  as  we  have,  that  the 
attempt  to  show  any  instances  of  Presbyterian  ordination, 
from  the  Scriptures,  has  proved  abortive.  The  failure  to 
produce  a  single  case  of  such  ordination,  makes  us  suspect 
that  it  cannot  be  made  to  appear  that  "  common  pastors" 
were  ever  directed  to  set  apart  to  the  ministry.  If  they  were, 
indeed  commanded,  to  discharge  this  duty,  why  can  it  not  be 
shown  to  have  been  performed? 

But  let  us  see  what  can  be  said  in  defence  of  this  new  posi- 
tion. Two  instances  of  direction  to  Presbyters  to  ordain, 
are  alledged:  the  first  is  the  command  to  the  "  prophets  and 
teachers"  at  Antioch,  to  set  apart  Paul  and  Barnabas;  the 
second  is  to  be  found,  it  is  said,  in  the  instructions  which 
were  given  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  in  relation  to  the  exercise 
of  the  ordaining  power. 

1.  So  far  as  the  first  of  these  alledged  instances  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  only  necessary  to  recur  to  our  examination  of 
the  transaction  at  Antioch,  to  see  that  it  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  matter  in  hand.  As  that  ceremony  has  been  proved 
to  have  been  something  other  than  a  separation  to  the  min-* 
istry,  the  plea  that  the  command  to  the  "  prophets  and 
teachers"  was  a  direction  to  ordain  is,  of  course,  entirely 
inadmissible.  Thus,  one  of  Mr.  H.'s  two  instances  is  sum- 
marily disposed  of;  as  yet  we  see  no  warrant  for  Presbyters 
to  ordain. 

2.  Let  us  now  take  up  the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  and 
see  whether  any  such  thing  is  to  be  found  in  the  instructions 
given  to  them.  As  they  "received  similar  instructions," 
what  is  true  of  one  must  be  so  of  the  other;  and  to  institute 
an  inquiry  into  the  official  powers  of  either,  will  be  to  inves- 
tigate the  cases  of  both.  We  choose  for  this  purpose  that  of 
Timothy,  and  for  two  reasons ;j^r5^,  that  we  have  rnore  full 
information  respecting  him;  and,  second^  that  Mr.  H.  has 
given  most  prominence  to  his  case. 

To  make  it  appear  that  "  Presbyters  were  directed  to  or- 
dain," Mr.  H.  was  obliged  to  assume  that  those  instructions 
which  Timothy  received  from  St.  Paul,  in  relation  to  the 
exercise  of  the  ordaining  power,  were  given  to  him  as  a 
common  pastor,  or  presbyter-evangelist. 

Does  this  seem  to  us  probable  1  After  following  this  ad- 
vocate of  the  Presbyterian  theory  over  every  inch  of  his 
Scripture  ground,  to  the  very  last  point  of  his  alledged  posi- 
tive proofs,  without  finding  one  instance  of  ordination  by 
mere  Elders,  or  hearing  a  word  of  any  permission  being 


39 

granted  them  to  perform  such  an  act,  is  it  probable  that 
Timothy  is  addressed  as  a  common  pastor?  Up  to  this  time, 
we  have  seen  that  no  case  of  setting  apart  to  the  ministry 
occurred,  in  which  Apostles  did  not  act  as  the  ordainers;  and 
as  there  is  no  evidence  from  previous  fact  or  precept,  that  a 
common  Elder  had  power  to  ordain,  but  proof  to  the  con- 
trary, in  the  circumstance  that  Apostles^  exclusively,  had  all 
along  exercised  this  right,  the  probability  clearly  is,  that 
Timothy  was  not  a  common  pastor.  His  having  this  power 
of  ordination,  which  we  must  judge  to  have  been  unpossessed, 
because  not  exercised  by  mere  elders,  but  which  was  pe- 
culiar to  the  Apostles,  distinguishes  him  from  the  former, 
and  ranks  him,  in  ministerial  powers,  in  the  superior  grade 
of  the  latter. 

Mr.  H.,  then,  in  attempting  to  show  that  Timothy  was  no 
more  than  a  Presbyter-evangelist,  begins  his  argument  with 
the  probability  against  him.  Having  failed  to  adduce  any 
instance  of  ordination  by  common  pastors,  or  so  much  as  a 
direction  or  permission  for  them  to  set  apart  to  the  sacred 
office,  he  needs  strong  proofs  to  enable  him  to  make  out  his 
case.  And  now  the  question  is,  does  he  produce  them;  does 
he  bring  an  array  of  evidence  strong  enough  to  overwhelm 
opposing  probabilities ;  does  he  make  it  appear,  contrary  to 
all  previous  recorded  practice,  that  Timothy  was  directed  to 
ordain  as  a  common  pastor?  Far  from  it.  His  proofs  are 
found,  upon  examination,  to  be  unsatisfactory;  and  his  argu- 
ments based  on  them  inconclusive.  Some  of  them  are  really 
too  weak  to  call  for  any  formal  reply:  for  example — 

1.  Paul  "  besoughV^  Timothy  ''  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus," 
therefore  he  must  have  been  a  common  pastor,  p.  25.  Who 
does  not  see,  in  view  of  the  relation  which  the  aged  Apostle 
sustained  to  Timothy,  that  his  "  beseeching"  him  to  remain, 
agrees  as  well  with  the  idea  of  his  being  a  Diocesan  Bishop, 
as  with  the  notion  that  he  was  a  mere  Presbyter?  Such  rea- 
soning amounts  to  nothing. 

2.  Again:  "  the  Apostle  directs  them  [Timothy  and  Titus] 
*  *  *  to  preach,"  therefore  they  must  have  been  Pres- 
byterian ministers.  This  is  all  Mr.  Hart's  argument,  at  pp. 
26,  27,  amounts  to,  when  stripped  of  its  verbiage.  His 
position  is,  that  since  the  same  letters  of  instruction,  given 
to  these  two  persons,  directed  them  to  preach  as  well  as  to 
ordain,  "  I  have  as  good  a  right  to  affirm  that  the  Elders  in 
those  places  [Ephesus  and  Crete]  had  no  authority  io preach, 
as  another  man  has  to  say  that  they  had  no  authority  to 
ordain.'^  The  fallacy  of  this  reasoning  is  too  apparent  io 
need  exposure.     Can    there  be  no  community    of    official 


40 

rights  but  an  unrestricted  one?  Might  not  Timothy  and 
Titus  commission  others,  as  Episcopal  Bishops  do  now,  to 
perform  with  them  "  ordinary  ministerial  duties,"  and 
yet  retain  the  power  of  ordination  in  their  own  hands'?  And 
is  it  not  clear,  from  the  Epistles  addressed  to  them,  that  this 
was,  in  fact,  the  course  pursued?  While  they  were  in- 
structed to  demand  aptness  to  communicate  in  such  as 
aspired  to  the  sacred  office;  and  enjoined  to  commit  those 
things  which  they  had  heard  to  faithful  men,  who  should 
"  be  able  to  teach  others  also,"  not  one  word  is  said,  nor  a 
single  intimation  given,  that  they  were  to  impart  to  these 
common  pastors  the  power  of  o7-dination.  This  is  decisive. 
They  are  commanded  to  commission  some  to  teach;  they 
are  not  instructed  to  commission  those  same  persons  to  give 
the  ministry  to  others:  and  as  one  of  these  functions  has 
beien  shown  to  be  not  necessarily  included  in  the  other, 
in  the  absence  of  all  Scripture  proof  that  a  common  pastor 
ever  set  apart  to  the  ministry,  or  was  even  directed  so  to  do, 
we  see  that  Mr.  H.  had  not  "  as  good  a  right  to  affirm,  that 
the  Elders  in  *  *  [Ephesus  and  Crete]  had  no  authority 
to  preach,  as  another  man  has  to  say  that  they  had  no  au- 
thority to  ordain.^^  The  mere  Presbytership  of  the  office 
which  Timothy  and  Titus  held  is  not  to  be  proved,  to  the 
satisfaction  of  any  one,  by  reasoning  like  this.  Not  till  it 
can  be  shown  from  the  Epistles  to  these  persons,  that  they 
were  to  commission  all,  whom  they  set  apart  to  the  ministry, 
to  ordain  as  well  as  to  teach,  can  it  avail  any  thing  to  tell  us,- 
that  a  direction  to  discharge  these  t\vo  functions  is  con- 
tained in  the  same  set  of  instructions — for  it  does  not 
follow  that  all  who  were  commissioned  to  preach  may 
ordain:  and,  therefore,  it  does  not  so  much  as  begin  to  prove 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  no  more  than  common  pastors. 

3.  But  again — it  is  urged  by  Mr.  H. — Timothy  was  too 
much  of  a  traveler  to  have  been  any  thing  else  than  a  Pres- 
byter-missionary or  Evangelist;  "  His  itinerary  life  is  a  proof 
that  he  was  not  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  nor  of  any  other 
place.'^  p.  23. 

This  is  inconclusive;  for  even  could  it  be  shown  that 
Timothy  took  most  of  his  journeys  after  being  placed  at 
Ephesus,  it  would  be  far  from  proving  him  to  have  been  a 
mere  Presbyter.  The  Episcopalians  in  this  country  have 
Bishops,  we  know,  who  travel  in  the  direct  execution  of 
their  office,  quite  as  widely  as  he  ever  did.  And  had  Mr. 
H.  quoted,  as  he  ought,  the  whole  of  the  section  from  Euse- 
bius,  which  treats  of  Evangelists,  it  would  have  appeared  on 
the  page  of  his  own  pamphlet,  that  persons  who  bore  this 


41 

title  were  Bishops,  distinctively  so  called;  for  Eusebius  ex-» 
pressly  says,  they  were  such  as  had  obtained  "the  first 
step*  of  Apostolic  succession."  So  that  could  it  be  proved 
that  Timothy  was  "  an  Evangelist"  or  Missionary,  and  that 
he  traveled  ever  so  extensively  during  his  whole  life  time, 
it  would  not  militate,  in  the  least,  against  the  idea  of  his 
being  a  Bishop  in  the  appropriate  sense.     But — 

4.  It  is  not  true  that  he  took  all,  or  any,  excepting  oncj 
of  his  recorded  journeys,  after  being  placed  at  Ephesus. 
An  erroneous  assumption  in  regard  to  the  time  of  his  being 
fixed  there,  conducts  to  a  false  conclusion  in  this  particular 
— and  is  the  source,  too,  of  all  the  difficulty  felt  by  Mr.  H» 
in  regard  to  the  silence  which  is  observed  respecting  "  the 
Bishop,"  in  the  message  St.  Paul  despatched  to  the  Ephe-^ 
sian  Elders  to  meet  him  at  Miletus. f 

His  remarks  in  the  first,  second,  third  and  fifth  sections  of 
the  head  now  under  consideration,  suppose  the  placing  of 
Timothy  at  Ephesus  to  have  been  previous  to  the  interview 
at  Miletus.  This  is  a  mistake;  for  the  time  when  he  was 
located  there,  w^as  on  some  occasion  of  Paul's  going  from 
that  place  into  Macedonia,!  and  it  is  demonstrable  that 
Timothy  was  not  at  Ephesus  on  any  recorded  occasion  of 
the  Apostle's  going  thence  into  that  region,  before  the  in- 
terview above  named.  The  erroneousness  of  Mr.  H.'s  sup- 
position is  provable  in  another  way.  At  the  time  Timothy 
vi-'as  placed  at  Ephesus  heresy  had  sprung  up:  "  I  besought 
thee  to  abide,"  *  *  *  says  the  Apostle,  "  that  thou 
mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine. "J 
But  no  error  of  this  kind  had  appeared  previous  to  the  in- 
terview at  Miletus,  for  we  learn  that  these  false  teachers 
were  then  to  arise  ;§  therefore  we  must  conclude,  that  the  time 
of  Timothy's  being  left  at  Ephesus  could  not  have  been  be- 
fore that  interview;  and  if  it  were  after  it,  then  it  must  have 
been  subsequent  to  St.  Paul's  first  imprisonment,  as  there 
was  no  time  between  the  interview  and  the  imprisonment  at 
which  he  could  have  been  "  going  into  Macedonia. "|| 

*  Ta^iv.  t  rage  24,  1,  2,  and  3  Sections. 

tlTim.i.  3.  §  Acts  xx.  29,  30. 

Ij  IMie  only  reason  for  assigning  an  earlier  jieriod  for  the  leaving  of  Timothy  at 
Ephesus,  and  the  writing  of  the  1st  I".])islle  to  him,  than  its  author's  first  im- 
prisonment at  Rome,  is  to  save  the  infallibility  of  St.  Paul's  prediction  to  the 
Ephesian  Elders,  "  that  they  should  see  his  face  no  more.''  But  that  he  intended 
nothing  more  than  that  the  threatening  aspects  of  things  presaged  this  as  their 
last  interview,  is  in  accordance  witli  the  j)revions  assertion  of  his  "  not  knowing 
(certainly)  the  things  which  should  hciall  him  ;  and  also  with  the  perpetual  oc- 
currence of  such  language  ;  wlicre  oidy  an  opinion  is  expressed  :  as  Phil.  ii.  24, 
where  the  Apostle  shows  that  his  former  a.«isertion,  ch.  i.  25,  "  I  know,"  is  to  be 
qualified  to  an  opinion.     That  St.  Paul  visited  Ephesus  aftef  his  first  liberation, 

6 


42 

In  this  view,  how  harmless  appear  such  insinuations  as 
Mr.  H.  has  thrown  out  on  his  twenty-fourth  page.  With 
our  eyes  on  the  fact  that  Timothy  was  not  placed  at  Ephesus 
till  after  Paul's  meeting  its  Elders,  we  can  be  at  no  loss  for 
a  reason  why  "the  Bishop"  was  not  sent  for;  and  when  we 
consider  that  at  the  time  of  receiving  his  instructions, 
which,  like  his  settlement,  was  subsequent  to  Paul's  first 
imprisonment,  and,  therefore,  when  all,  but  one,  of  his  re- 
corded journeys  had  been  accomplished;  how  perfectly  ob- 
vious it  is  that  all  that  is  said  about  his  traveling  so  much, 
does  nothing  towards  proving  him  to  have  been  a  common 
pastor  or  Presbyter-Evangelist. 

5.  But  he  could  have  been  no  more  than  this,  says  Mr. 
H.,  for  Paul  "  committed  the  whole  management  of  the 
Ephesian  Church  to  its  Elders,"  upon  the  occasion  of  his 
interview  with  them  at  Miletus,    p.  24. 

Such  is  not  the  fact:  the  extent  of  their  commission,  as 
appears  from  the  record  of  that  interview,  was  "  to  feed"  the 
flock,  and  to  exercise  such  discipline  among  them  as  mod- 
ern Episcopal  Presbyters  administer.  Here  their  authority 
ended;  for  it  is  not  so  much  as  intimated  that  they  had  the 
power  to  ordain.  And  though  they  are  exhorted  to  watch 
against  false  teachers,  yet,  be  it  observed,  not  a  word  is  said 
of  their  having  authority  to  try  and  censure  or  degrade  them. 
It  is  not  true  then,  that  "the  whole  management  of  the  Ephe- 
sian Church  was  committed  to  these  Elders;"  and,  therefore, 
it  is  not  true  that  there  was  no  need — as  Mr.  H.  would  have 
us  infer — of  Timothy's  being  any  thing  more  than  a  common 
pastor.  There  was  need  of  this,  as  we  plainly  see  in  the 
fact,  that  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  had  no  authority  or  power 
to  ordain  to  the  ministry  nor  depose  from  it.  And  we  need 
go  no  further  than  to  compare  the  address  made  to  these 
Elders  at  Miletus,*  with  the  instructions  to  Timothy,!  after 
he  became  resident  among  them,  to  be  convinced  that  he 
could  do  what  they  could  not,  and,  consequently,  that  they 
were  not  his  equal.  Observe  the  points  of  contrast:  they 
are  directed  "  to  feed"  the  flock;  but  he  is  commissioned  to 
appoint  new  shepherds,  "lay  \thoii\  hands  suddenly  on  no 
man,"  but  "  the  things  that  thou  has  heard  of  me  *  *  * 
the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men" — they  are  allowed  to 

from  Rome,  is  highly  probable.  Having  expressed  an  intention  to  visit  Colosse, 
and  under  promise  to  see 'shortly"  the  Church  at  Philippi;  in  passing  from 
Colosse  to  Philippi,  he  could  hardly  have  failed  to  take  Ephesus  in  his  way ;  and 
what  more  probable  than  that  this  was  the  going  into  Macedonia  alluded  to,  1 
Tim.  i.  3,  alwhich  time  Timothy  was  -'besought  to  abide  at  Ephesus".'  See 
McKnight's  Preface  to  1  Timothy;  Paley's  Horse  Paulina>,  ch.  ,\i. 

*  Acts  XX.  28 — 32.  t  See  Epistles  to  Timothy,  passim. 


43 

exercise  discipline  over  the  people;  but  Ae  is  empowered  to 
exercise  discipline  over  them,  "  charge  some  [ministers]  that 
they  teach  no  other  doctrine" — ^/iey  might  "  watch"  against 
errorists,  but  he  was  authorized  to  receive  "an  accusation 
against  an  Elder,"  and  by  himself  alone,  officially  "  rebuke" 
such  ministers  as  were  convicted  of  sin. 

With  these  facts  before  us,  who  that  remembers  that 
these  different  charges  were  addressed  to  ministers  of  the 
same  city,  is  not  satisfied  that  the  young  man,  Timothy,  to 
whom  alone,  among  all  the  clergy  of  Ephesus,  were  en- 
trusted the  high  duties  of  ordaining,  trying,  and  rebuking 
Elders,  could  have  been  no  common  pastor? 

This  conclusion  is  fatal  to  Mr.  Hart's  position,  that  "in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  Presbyters  were  expressly  directed 
to  ordain":  the  former  of  his  two  instances  we  were  obliged 
to  set  aside  as  wholly  inapplicable;  and  now  the  latter  is 
shown  to  be  not  in  point,  inasmuch  as  it  seems  to  \is  demon- 
strated, that  Timothy  was  not  instructed  to  ordain  as  a  com- 
mon pastor.     But — 

6.  Says  Mr.  H.,  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Orcumenius, 
and  Whitby  testify  that  neither  Timothy  nor  Titus  held  a 
higher  office  than  this.  Here  again  he  is  mistaken.  The 
author  of  "  a  Letter  to  a  Friend"  is  as  unfortunate  in  his 
authorities  as  in  his  arguments.  The  passage  quoted  from 
Chrysostom  does  not  assert,  nor  even  imply,  that  Titus  was 
no  more  than  a  common  pastor  or  PreslDyter-Evangelist. 
Indeed,  no  one  of  the  Fathers  maintains  the  distinction  be- 
tween Bishop  and  Presbyter,  and  the  inability  of  the  latter 
to  ordain,  more  clearly  than  he;  though  in  some  other  re- 
spects, he  would  have  limited  the  power  of  the  Bishop.  In 
his  eleventh  homily  he  tells  us  that  there  is  scarce  any  act 
of  the  Episcopal  office  which  may  not  be  exercised  by  Pres- 
byters, "  except  imposition  of  hands^^ ;  and  in  his  comment  on 
"  the  Presbytery,"  who  took  part  in  the  ordination  of 
Timothy,  he  says,  the  Apostle  "  does  not  speak  here  of 
Presbyters,  but  of  Bishops,  for  Presbyters  did  not  ordain  a 
Bishop."  These  quotations  show,  that  whatever  Chrysos- 
tom's  opinions  may  have  been  with  respect  to  the  early 
Diocesan  divisions  of  Crete,  he  can  never  be  cited,  with 
either  fairness  or  success,  to  show  that  Titus  and  Timothy 
were  mere  Presbyters;  for  while  he  knew  that  they  were 
empowered  to  set  apart  to  the  sacred  office,  he  asserts  above, 
unqualifiedly,  that  Presbyters  cannot  ordain.  Besides,  Mr. 
Hart's  quotations  from  Chrysostom  prove  nothing  to  his 
purpose,  as  there  were  eleven  Dioceses  in  Crete  in  his  day, 
all  of  which  were  considered  Apostolic,  and  to  which  the 
quoted  language  of  this  father  was  applied. 


44 

Had  we  space,  it  might  be  shown  with  equal  clearness 
that  the  names  of  Theophylact  and  Orcumenius  cannot,  with 
truth,  be  mentioned  as  witnesses  to  the  mere  Presbyterial 
standing  of  Timothy  and  Titus.  Whitby  is  so  grievously 
misrepresented,  that  we  deem  it  a  duty  to  say  a  word  in  his 
vindication.  He  declares — we  are  told — that  he  could  find 
no  evidence  in  the  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries,  that 
Timothy  and  Titus  "  bore  the  name"  of  Bishop — the  one  of 
Ephesus,  and  the  other  of  Crete.  We  care  little  for 
Whitby's  declaration,  since  a  reference  to  Archbishop 
Ussher's  "  Discourse  on  Episcopacy,"  will  convince  any  one 
that  there  is  testimony  wuthin  the  above  period,  that  Timothy 
and  Titus  did  bear  the  title  in  question.  But  why  did  not 
Mr.  H.  inform  us,  as  he  should,  that  this  writer,  after-making 
the  declaration  quoted,  immediately  adds,  "  but  this  defect 
is  abundantly  supplied  by  the  concurrent  suifrage  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries." 

Our  previous  conclusion,  then,  that  Timothy  could  not 
have  been  merely  a  common  pastor,  being  rather  strength- 
ened than  otherwise,  by  an  examination  of  the  authorities 
adduced  to  establish  a  contrary  opinion,  must  stand;  and, 
as  involved  in  it,  the  further  conclusion,  that  Mr.  H.  has 
entirely  failed  to  show  that  Presbyters  were,  in  Apostolic 
times  "  directed  to  ordain." 

We  have  now  gone  through  with  all  Mr.  Hart's  positive 
"Reasons  for  relying  on  Presbyterian  Ordination,"  and 
been  obliged  to  reject  them;  those  based  upon  alledged  con- 
cessions of  Episcopalians,  on  the  ground  of  mistake  and  ir- 
relevance; and  those  founded  on  culled  passages  from  the 
Fathers,  on  account  of  the  absence  of  a  single  discoverable 
case  of  Presbyterian  ordination  in  passing  upward  from  the 
sixteenth  century. 

Coming  to  the  Apostolic  age,  we  have  gone  patiently 
over  the  Scripture  grounds  on  which  this  scheme -.is  pre- 
tended to  be  based.  Taking  its  theory,  which  assumes  that 
all  the  powers  of  the  Apostolic  commission  were  designed  for 
every  minister  of  the  Gospel,  we  have  considered  one  by  one 
the  proofs  which  Mr.  H.  has  adduced  in  its  support.  And 
what  is  the  conclusion?  It  is,  that  this  position  remains 
entirely  unsustained:  for  not  one  instance  is  to  be  found  in 
the  Bible  in  which  Presbyters  ordained,  nor  so  much  as  a 
jingle  direction  to  them  to  perform  such  an  act. 

How  then  can  we  look  upon  such  ordination  as  scriptural? 
How  can  we  regard  those  who  have  been  set  apart  by  it  as 
ministers  of  Christ?  Are  they  such?  This  is  a  question, 
not  qi  opinion,  but  pf  fact.     Had  the  claim  set  up  by  Mr. 


45 

H.  in  regard  to  the  Apostolic  commission  been  made  out — 
had  it  been  shown  from  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  under 
that  commission,  that  all  its  powers  were  intended  to  be 
conveyed  to  every  minister  of  the  Gospel,  it  would  follow 
that  the  common  pastor  has  power  to  ordain.  But  this  has 
not  been  done,  nor  can  it  be;  for  the  practice  of  the  Apostles 
is  directly  opposed  to  this  theory.  In  view  of  that  practice 
we  see,  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they — acting  under  inspi- 
ration— did  divide  the  powers  of  "the  one  commission"  by 
witholding  from  common  pastors  the  power  of  ordination; 
consequently,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  those  who  have  been  set 
apart  to  minister  in  holy  things,  by  the  unauthorized  hands 
of  a  mere  Presbyter,  have  no  commission  from  Christ. 

It  is  from  scriptural  grounds  that  we  infer,  that  those  who 
have  a  right  to  act  authoritatively  in  the  Saviour's  name  are 
not  to  be  found  in  a  Presbyterian  ministry — a  ministry, 
which,  in  its  unwarranted  beginning,  dates  no  further  back 
than  the  sixteenth  century.  Indeed,  we  do  not  see  that  the 
Congregationalist  would  be  in  the  least  bettered  in  regard 
to  the  priesthood,  even  could  he  prove  his  right  to  the  Pres- 
byterian ground;  both  schemes  are  equally  unscriptural. 

It  will  be  here  observed  by  those  who  have  Mr.  Hart's 
Tract,  that  we  have,  as  yet,  left  the  whole  of  his  first  general 
head  unexamined.  As  it  is  made  up  of  merely  pretended  neg- 
ative proofs  in  favor  of  his  theory,  presented  in  the  form  of  06- 
jections  to  the  Episcopal  scheme,  it  seems  most  natural  to 
consider  them  under  that  division;  and  it  will  be  remembered 
that  if  these  alledged  objections  to  a  superior  order  of  min- 
isters shall  be  found,  upon  examination,  not  to  lie  against 
Episcopacy,  they  can,  of  course,  furnish  no  shadow  ol' sup- 
port for  the  Presbyterian  theory.  With  this  fact  borne  in 
mind,  pass  we  to  the  consideration  of — 

THE     EPISCOPAL     SCHEME. 

This  scheme  asserts  that,  by  God's  arrangement,  there  are 
three  orders  in  the  Christian  Ministry, — Bishop,  Priest,  and 
Deacon  ;  that  the  power  of  ordination  has  been  placed  by  the 
Sovereign  Disposer,  in  the  hands  of  the  first  of  these  grades 
alone;  that  this  power  is  intransferable  to  either  of  the 
other  two — and,  therefore,  that  none  can  have  authority  to 
act  as  the  Saviour's  ambassadors,  but  such  as  have  been  set 
apart  to  his  ministry  by  the  imposition  of  a  Bishop's  hands. 

And  in  view  of  the  previous  steps  taken,  and  conclusions 
arrived  at,  we  are  warranted  in  regarding  this  Episcopal 
cl.?iipi  as  something  more  than  a  bare  assumption;  coming  to 


46 

it,  as  we  do,  with  the  conviction  that  God  has  some  one 
form  of  ministry  in  the  world,  and  with  the  clearest  evidence 
that  no  one  of  those  forms  which  we  have  examined  is 
that  true  ministry;  we  are  obliged  to  infer  that  the  Episcopal 
— the  only  remaining  one  known  among  men — must  be  it. 
And  what  goes  far  to  persuade  us  of  the  correctness  of  this 
conclusion  is,  the  well  known  fact,  that,  under  the  previous 
dispensation,  God's  priesthood  was,  indisputably,  of  this 
three-fold  character;  and  that  even  while  the  Church  was  in 
its  transition  state,  from  the  Jewish  to  Christian  dispensation, 
this  same  form  of  ministry  was  retained,  as  is  plainly  seen,  in 
Jesus  the  Christian  high  priest,  the  twelve,  and  the  seventy. 

Thus  much  negative  testimony  is  there  in  favor  of  the 
Episcopal  scheme.  And  this  alone  seems  quite  sufficient, 
in  the  present  position  of  the  case,  to  determine  the  question 
as  to — "  Who  are  Christ's  Ministers." 

1.  But  this  scheme  has  positive  proof  on  its  side  which 
claims  our  attention.  To  get  a  clear  and  comprehensive 
view  of  this  direct  evidence  for  Episcopacy,  we  first  pass 
along  to  that  point  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  at  which 
the  Saviour  conferred  upon  the  eleven  the  powers  which  he 
himself  had  exercised  in  it  on  earth.  This  transaction  took 
place  at  that  solemn  interview  in  which  "  he  breathed  on 
them,"  saying  "  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  "as  my 
Father  has  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."*  The  context, 
especially  the  twenty-third  verse,  shows  clearly  that  the 
sending  spoken  of  in  this  declaration  was  for  an  official  pur- 
pose; and  it  is  only  necessary  to  remember  the  capacity  in 
which  the  Saviour  acted  in  the  Church,  while  in  the  flesh,  to 
see  that  the  words  of  this  passage  conveyed  no  empty  com- 
mission. Whatever  was  necessary  to  complete  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Divine  Society,  and  to  provide  for  its  govern- 
ment and  perpetuity,  the  Apostles  were  now  as  fully  em- 
powered to  supply  as  even  the  Son  himself.  As  the  Father 
had  sent  Him  to  appoint  teachers  under  him,  to  keep  things 
in  order  in  God's  house,  and  to  transfer  the  power  of  ap- 
pointment and  supreme  oversight  to  others;  so,  he  here 
declares,  that  he  sends  them  to  ordain,  to  govern,  and,  in 
turn,  to  transmit  this  authority  to  some  as  their  successors. 
Thus  far  their  commission  was  designed  to  extend,  as  is  ob- 
vious from  its  terms.  Whether  the  priesthood  was  to  be 
continued  as  heretofore  in  different  grades,  or  only  in  one, 
cannot  certainly  be  determined  from  the  commission  itself. 
To  ascertain  this  we  must  take  another  step,  and — 

*  John  XX.  21,22. 


47 

2.  In  the  second  place,  observe  how  the  eleven  acted 
under  this  their  commission.  Their  praclice,  I  repeat,  must 
be  looked  to,  if  we  would  ascertain  the  mind  of  Clirist  in  re- 
gard to  the  form  of  the  ministry.  What,  then,  was  that  prac- 
tice'? First  we  find  them  appointing  one  to  their  own  order.* 
Next  we  find  them  ordaining  seven  deacons.f  And  subse- 
quently, our  attention  is  directed  to  the  Apostles  J  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  going  from  place  to  place,  setting  Elders  over 
every  Church. §  Surely  this  looks  very  much  like  a  three- 
fold ministry:  for  the  Deacons  were  proper  ministers,  as  is 
obvious  from  the  fact,  that  one  of  them,  Philip,  is  found 
preaching  and  baptizing. II  And  the  Elders,  though  clearly 
a  separate  order  from  the  Deacons, H  were  yet,  obviously, 
inferior  to  the  Apostles  m  ministerial  standing,  as  is  indi- 
cated by  the  circumstance  of  their  being  distinguished  thus 
whenever  the  sacred  writer  had  occasion  to  speak  of  them 
in  conjunclion, — as  "  Apostles  and  Elders;"**  "  Apostles 
and  Elders  and  brethren  ;"tt  the  form  of  expression  making 
it  evident  that  there  was  as  clear  a  difference  between 
"  Apostles  and  Elders,"  as  between  "  Elders  and  brethren." 
In  this  view  the  inferiority  of  "  Elders"  is  sufficiently  ap- 
parent. But  it  is  put  beyond  all  question  by  the  circum- 
stance— so  fully  proved  in  our  examination  of  the  Presbyterian 
scheme — that  the  power  of  ordination  was  withheld  from  them. 
This  the  Apostles  confined,  for  the  time  being,  to  themselves; 
and  by  so  doing,  continued  the  ministry  in  its  three  orders — 
then  called  Apostles,  Elders  or  Bishops,  and  Deacons. 

3.  But  was  it  to  continue  so,  longer  than  the  life-time  of 
the  chosen  witnesses?  Is  there  evidence  that  this  ordinary 
ministerial  superiority  possessed  by  Apostles  over  Elders 
was  designed  by  God  to  be  transmitted  by  them  to  others, 
who  alone,  among  many  ministers,  should  have  the  ordain- 
ing power,  and  who,  in  turn,  should  have  authority  over  the 
Elders  of  their  times?  There  is.  In  the  case  of  Timothy 
we  have  seen  proof  of  this:  in  examining  it  we  have  seen 
St.  Paul,  acting  under  special  divine  guidance,  setting  an 
uninspired  man  over  the  numerous  Ephesian  Elders,  and 
entrusting  him,  not  only  with  the  exclusive  right  to  ordain 
in  that  city, J  t  but  with  power  also  to   "  charge  some  [min- 

*  Acts  i.  15—26.  +  Acts  vi.  3—6  \  Acts  xiv.  4.  ^  Acts  xi v.  23. 

II  Should  any  one  be  disposed  to  question  this,  let  him  peruse  Acts  viii.  5 — 12, 
and  see  wliether  he  can  tiud  the  least  siiadow  of  proof  that  PhiMp,  at  the  time  of 
peiforming  the  ministerial  acts  there  recorded,  had  received  other  than  his  first 
ordination. 

ir  1  Tim.  iii.   1—13.  **  Acts  XV.  2,4,6,  22.  tt  Acts  xv.  23. 

\\  Compare  1  Tim.  v.  22,  and  2  Tim.  ii.  2,  with  Paul's  address  to  the  Elders  of 
Ephesus,  Acts  XX.  17 — 38  ;  and  see  our  remarks  on  these  different  charges,  under 
the  head  of  the  Presbyterian  scheme. 


48 

isters]  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine";*  to  receive  accu* 
sations  against  Elders ;t  and  to  "  rebuke"  such  of  them  aS 
might  need  reproof.  J  Surely  here  is  Episcopacy — continued 
Episcopacy. 

4.  But  let  us  come  a  little  further  down,  and  see  whether 
this  distinction  of  grades  in  the  ministry  is  perpetuated.  The 
time  of  Timothy's  being  set  over  the  Ephesian  Church  was, 
probably,  about  A.  D.  65.  Pass  we  down  31  years,  which 
brings  us  to  the  occasion  of  sending  to  the  Churches  of  Asia 
those  brief  epistles  which  we  find  recorded  in  the  second  and 
third  chapters  of  the  Revelation  of  St.  John. 

The  first  of  these  is  to  Ephesus:  and  its  address,  "unto 
the  angel  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus,"  shows  that  in  the  year 
96,  just  such  a  superior  officer  was  there  in  the  Church  as 
Timothy  was  in  it  A.  D.  65.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  there  was 
only  one  congregation  in  Ephesus,  and  that  the  angel  of  its 
Church  was  a  common  pastor.  Nearly  forty  years  previous 
to  this  there  were,  as  we  learn  from  Acts  xx,  numerous 
Elders  in  that  city.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  inevitable, 
unless  the  Ephesian  Church  can  be  shown  to  have  decreased, 
that  this  person,  called  "  the  angel."  and  who  is  held  indi- 
vidually responsible  for  the  spiritual  deficiency  of  the  whole 
Ephesian  Church,  could  be  none  other  than  its  Bishop,  dis- 
tinctively so  called.  Here,  then,  in  the  year  96,  we  still  find 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  at  Ephesus. 

5.  Take  we  now  another  step,  of  twenty  years,  which 
brings  us  over  the  line  that  separates  us  from  the  Apostolic 
age,  to  the  year  in  which  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  suf- 
fered martyrdom  at  Rome — A.  D.  116.||  On  his  way  to  the 
imperial  city,  to  shed  his  blood  in  defence  of  the  Gospel, 
this  holy  man  wrote  an  epistle  or  letter  to  the  Church  of 
Ephesus,  which  we  still  possess:  and  in  that  letter  he  speaks 
of  the  body  of  Presbyters  belonging  to  that  city,  and  of  their 
Bishop,  distinguishing  the  latter  from  the  former  sp  clearly 
that  no  human  ingenuity  can  confound  them;  and  it  is  deser- 
ving of  notice,  that  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus  was  now  not 
Timothy,  who  had  gone  to  his  reward,  but  Onesimus  his 
successor  in  the  Episcopate.  With  these  facts  in  view, 
who  can  question  that  it  was  the  design  of  the  Apostles, 
and  the  will  of  Christ,  that  Episcopacy  should  continue? 

This  case  of  Ephesus  has  been  taken,  not  because  of  any 
peculiarity  in  it,  but  for  the  simple  reason  that  we  are  in 
possession  of  more  facts  in  relation  to  the  Church  in  that 
than  in  most  other  places.   Elsewhere  the  same  organization. 


*  Tim.  i.  3.  t  1  Tim.  v.  19.  t  1.  Tim.  v.  20. 

II  Or  as  some  suppose,  A.  D.  107. 


49 

of  the  ministry  obtained.  We  can  show  this  to  be  so.  At 
the  same  time  that  Ignatius  wrote  to  the  Ephesians,  that  is, 
when  on  his  way  to  Rome  to  suffer  martyrdom,  in  the  year 
116;  he  sent  letters  also  to  the  Churches  of  Magnesia, 
Tralles,  Philadelphia,  and  Smyrna,  which  are  still  extant, 
and  which  any  one  may  see  who  will  take  the  pains  to 
inquire  for  them.  In  these  Epistles  we  every  where  meet 
with  passages  like  these:  ^'  Your  Bishop  presiding  in  the 
place  of  God;  your  Presbyters  in  the  place  of  the  Council  of 
the  Apostles;  and  your  Deacons  most  dear  to  me,  being 
entrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ" — "  let  all  rever- 
ence the  Deacons  as  Jesus  Christ;  and  the  Bishop  as  the 
Father;  and  the  Presbytery  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  without 
these  there  is  no  Church.^'  "  He  that  is  within  the  Altar  is 
pure;  but  he  that  is  without,  that  is,  that  does  any  thing 
without  the  Bishop  and  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  is  not  pure 
in  his  conscience."  Now,  however  much  of  hyperbole  there 
may  be  in  these  expressions,  it  will  be  observed  that  what- 
ever be  the  degree  of  elevation  which  is  given  to  the  office 
of  Presbyter,  that  of  Bishop  is  placed  still  higher.  This  is 
decisive  as  to  the  matter  of  fact — it  puts  it  beyond  all  doubt 
that  the  Church  was  Episcopal  in  the  year  116.  There  is 
no  possibility  of  evading  this  conclusion,  in  view  of  the  evi- 
dence before  us,  except  by  questioning  the  competency  of 
Ignatius  as  a  witness,  or  denying  the  genuineness  of  his 
Epistles  from  which  the  above  quotations  are  made.  The 
former  is  what  no  one  will  think  of  who  remembers  that  he 
was  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John  himself;  and  the  latter  is 
what  scarce  any  one  will  be  found  to  do,  who  values  his  repu- 
tation as  a  scholar.  One  individual  of  some  consequence, 
it  is  true,  has,  in  this  country,  ventured  to  call  the  credi- 
bility of  these  Epistles  in  question;  but  we  find  that  even  he 
can  quote  them  as  good  authority,  when  the  object  in  hand, 
instead  of  being  the  defence  of  Presbyterianism,  is  the  de- 
molition of  Unitarianism.  Their  genuineness  and  the  testi- 
mony we  have  drawn  from  them,  may,  therefore,  be  re- 
lied on. 

In  the  year  A.  D.  116,  then.  Episcopacy  was  received  as 
the  ordinance  of  God.  And  the  united  voice  of  History 
declares  that,  with  unbroken  succession,  it  continued  to  be 
so  throughout  the  Christian  world  for  1500  years:  indeed, 
by  demonstrating  the  establishment  of  Episcopacy  in  Apos- 
tolic times,  and  disproving  every  alledged  case  of  Presby- 
terian ordination  within  the  above  named  period,  we  have 
arrived  at  the  conclusion,  by  a  regular  induction  from  facts, 
that  down  to  the  sixteenth  century,  wherever  the  Christian 

7 


50 

ministry  was  found,  it  presented  the  three-fold  form  ol 
Bishop,  Priest,  and  Deacon. 

And  now  what  is  the  inference  from  these  facts?  If  the 
Apostles,  acting  under  divine  inspiration,  did  constitute  the 
Christian  ministry  in  three  orders;  if  they  never  entrusted 
the  power  of  ordination  to  common  pastors,  as  is  apparent 
from  the  fact  that  Apostles  alone  set  apart  to  the  sacred 
office  in  their  own  day,  and  from  the  fact  that,  when  about 
to  leave  the  world,  they  did  appoint  one,  here  and  there, 
among  many  ministers  to  act,  in  their  stead,  in  this  superior 
ministerial  capacity,  as  Timothy  at  Ephesus;  and  if  this 
distinction  was  to  be  perpetuated,  which  is  evident  from  the 
fact,  that  we  find  it  prevailing,  not  only  at  A.  D.  116,  but 
through  a  period  of  1500  years,  is  it  not  clear  that  such,  and 
such  only,  as  have  been  ordained  by  that  officer  of  the 
Church  who  is  superior  to  a  common  pastor  are  "  Ministers  of 
Christ"?  When  the  power  to  set  apart  to  the  ministry  was 
never  conferred  on  common  pastors,  but  was  reserved  for 
an  order  above  them,  and  that  as  a  standing  divine  arrange- 
ment, how  is  the  conclusion  to  be  avoided,  that  a  commission 
to  act  authoritatively  in  the  Saviour's  name,  can  be  derived 
only  from  that  higher  order  of  officers  in  the  Church,  who 
have  succeeded  to  the  ministerial  rights  which  Apostles 
possessed  above  the  Elders  of  their  times?  The  inference 
seems  perfectly  unavoidable. 

But  objections  are  urged  against  this  position.  Let  us  ex- 
amine them.  Unless  they  are  found  to  lie  more  heavily 
against  this  scheme  than  any  thing  which  has  yet  been 
brought  forward,  we  shall  certainly  feel  obliged  to  abide  by 
our  present  conviction,  that  an  order  higher  than  Presbyters 
can  alone  ordain,  and  that  it  is  only  such  as  have  been  set 
apart  by  this  superior  order  that  we  have  a  right  to  regard  as 
«'  Christ's  Ministers." 

Obj.  1.  It  is  objected,  by  Mr.  Hart,  that  the  positron  taken 
by  Episcopalians,  that  God  has  set  in  the  Church  an  order 
of  ministers  "  superior  to  Presbyters,"  is  unfounded,  inas- 
much as  the  titles  "  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  are  used  in  the 
New  Testament  as  words  of  the  same  import."  p.  4. 

Answer.  We  admit  that  the  name  bishop  is  applied  in 
Scripture  to  common  pastors;  but  we  deny  that  it  can  be  in- 
ferred from  hence  that  God  has  set  in  his  Church  no  order  of 
ministers  "superior  to  Presbyters."  That  there  was  such 
an  order  in  the  first  age  we  have  proved.  In  the  Apostles, 
in  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  in  the  angels  of  the  seven  Asiatic 
Churches,  we  have  seen  a  grade  of  ecclesiastical  officers  who 
were  above  common  Elders  in  ministerial  standing  in  that 


51 

they  had  the  exclusive  power  of  ordination,  and  right  of 
supreme  authority.  Of  what  consequence  is  it  about  the 
name'?  The  question  is,  do  the  Scriptures  show  that  there 
is  in  the  Church  an  office  superior  to  that  of  Eldership.  Do 
they  show  that  Presbyter-Bishops  had  some  one  over  them, 
with  power  to  receive  accusations  against  them,  to  try  and 
to  depose  them?  We  have  seen  that  they  do.  Safely,  then, 
may  we  concede  that  the  name.  Bishop,' is  in  the  Scriptures 
applied  to  mere  Presbyters.  Indeed,  we  do  not  hesitate  to 
declare  it  to  be  our  opinion,  that  the  title  Bishop  is  seldom 
if  ever  applied,  in  the  Scriptures,  to  this  higher  grade.  This 
first  order  is  found  in  the  Bible  in  those  called  "  Apostles,'* 
in  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  in  the  "  angels  of  the  seven 
Churches."  How  the  name  "  Bishop"  came  to  be  taken 
from  the  second  order  and  appropriated  exclusively  to  the 
first,  let  Theodoret  tell:  "  Those  now  called  Bishops  were 
anciently  called  Apostles;  but  in  process  of  time,  the  name 
of  Apostle  was  left  to  those  who  were  truly  Apostles,  and 
the  name  of  Bishop  was  restrained  to  those  who  w^ere  an- 
ciently called  Apostles." 

In  this  view,  we  see  there  is  no  force  in  the  objection 
which  is  grounded  on  the  use  of  names;  their  sense  is  too 
shifting  to  determine  any  thing.  We  are  inquiring  for 
things;  and  with  the  fact  before  our  eyes,  that  Presbyters, 
even  while  called  Bishops,  had  officers  over  them  who  had 
power  from  Christ  to  rule  the  pastor  while  he  ruled  his 
flock,  and  to  whom  the  sole  right  to  ordain  w^as  entrusted, 
we  cannot  but  feel  that  the  claim  of  Episcopacy  yet  stands 
good. 

Obj.  2.  Again;  Mr.  H.  objects  that  there  can  be  no 
superior  order  of  ministers  in  the  Church,  because  there  was 
but  a  single  commission  given  to  the  Apostles,  p.  5. 

Answer.  This  objection  has  been  examined  and  refuted 
in  the  course  of  our  remarks  upon  "  the  Presbyterian 
scheme."*  It  was  there  shown  that  the  powers  conveyed 
by  that  one  commission  might  be  divided;  and  it  was  in- 
sisted that  the  only  way  to  ascertain  whether  it  w^as  the 
will  of  Christ  that  they  should  or  should  not  be  divided,  is 
to  refer  to  the  actual  arrangements  made  by  the  Apostles 
acting  under  that  commission.  Such  a  reference  we  have 
made;  and  the  result  of  our  investigation  is,  that  the  twelve 
did  in  fact  make  a  division  of  ministerial  power,  conferring 
a  certain  portion  on  Deacons;  somewhat  more  upon  Elders; 
but  still  reserving  the  right  of  ordination  and  supreme  au- 


Page  30—33. 


52 

thority  to  themselves.  These,  I  repeat,  are  truths  which 
we  have  ascertained  from  an  examination  of  Scripture. 
And  before  facts  like  these,  Mr.  Hart's  mere  theoretical  ob- 
jection vanishes. 

It  is  idle  to  urge,  as  ]\Ir.  Hart  has  done,*  such  texts  as 
Luke  XX.  24 — 26,  against  the  doctrine  of  imparity  in  the 
priesthood;  nay,  in  view  of  the  fact,  that  the  blessed  Apos- 
tles constituted  the  ministry  in  various  orders,  and  held  the 
chief  place  in  it  themselves,  it  is  impious. 

Obj.  3.  It  is  objected,  by  Mr.  Hart,  that  "  there  is  no 
account  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  appointment  of  an 
order  superior  to  Presbyters  or  Elders."  p.  5. 

Answer.  This  is  not  so.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
powers  contained  in  the  commission  given  to  the  eleven 
were  designed  to  be  divided  into  various  portions;  and  that 
the  Apostles,  acting  under  inspiration,  retained  in  their  own 
hands  superior  ministerial  rights  and  powers,  with  direction 
to  transmit  them  to  an  order  of  men,  who  should  forever 
remain  superior  to  common  pastors — we  see  that,  in  the 
giving  of  the  commission  to  the  eleven,  the  Saviour  did 
then  and  thereby  appoint  an  order  of  ministers  in  his  Church 
superior  to  Presbyters. 

Obj.  4.  It  is  objected  that  "the  Bible  is  entirely  silent 
as  to  the  qualifications  for  more  than  one  order  of  minis- 
ters." p.  6. 

Answer  1.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  Hart's  confidence  on  this 
point,  to  us  it  appears  certain  that  his  own  references  point 
out  the  qualifications  of  at  least  two  orders  of  ministers. 
Presbyter-bishops  are,  confessedly,  one  order;  and  the  fact 
that  Philip,  one  of  the  seven,  preached  and  baptized,  laid 
by  the  side  of  what  St.  Paul  declares  to  be  requisite  in  one 
who  is  to  be  set  apart  to  the  Diaconate,  conclusively  proves 
that  he  who  has  been  rightly  ordained  to  this  office  is  a  proper 
minister  of  the  word.  So  that  in  the  very  passage  quoted 
to  sustain  the  objection,!  we  find  the  qualifications  express- 
ly laid  down  for  two  orders  of  ministers.  Is  it  still  objected 
that  the  Bible  says  nothing  of  the  qualifications  for  an  order 
superior  to  Elders  or  common  pastors? 

Answer  2.  It  may  be  answered  that  were  this  as  is  alledg- 
ed,  it  would  not  be  proof  that  God  has  set  no  such  order  in 
the  Church,  inasmuch  as  no  other  qualifications  of  any  kind 
are  necessary  to  fit  one  for  elevation  to  the  Episcopate, 
than  those  very  ones  which  are  required  in  him  who  seeks 


Page  5.  t  1  Tim.  iii.  1— IS. 


53 

advancement  to  the  Eldership.  While  it  may  be  said  to  be 
desirable  that  the  former  should  possess  the  qualifications 
in  an  eminent  degree;  no  difference  in  kind  can  be  affirmed 
to  be  requisite:  therefore  it  may  be  replied,  that  were  there 
a  total  absence  of  all  mention  of  qualifications  for  a  higher 
order  of  ministers  than  Presbyters,  it  would  militate  nothinor 
against  the  position  that  there  is  such  an  order,  since  their 
qualifications  may  be  regarded  as  included  in  those  for 
Elders. 

A7iswer  3.  But  it  may  be  denied  that  the  Bible  is  silent 
as  to  the  qualifications  lor  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to 
common  pastors.  In  the  description  which  is  given  us  of 
Timothy  and  Titus,  men  who  are  proved  to  have  belonged  to 
that  superior  order,  we  are  plainly  shown  what  a  person  should 
be  to  be  fit  for  elevation  to  that  high  office.  I  cannot  con- 
descend to  reply  to  the  insinuations  which  Mr.  Hart  has 
thrown  out  against  prelates,  but  to  the  question,  where 
are  your  specific  qualifications  for  this  superior  officer  of  the 
Church,  we  answer, — look  at  those  passages  of  the  Bible 
in  which  one  is  described  who  "  from  a  child  had  known  the 
Holy  Scriptures;"*  whose  heart  was  the  abode  of  "faith 
unfeigned"!  early  imbibed;  who  had  "  professed  a  good 
profession  before  many  witnesses;"!  and,  by  his  labors  of 
love,  earned  the  praise  of  all  the  Churches; — in  him  you  find 
our  model  of  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  an  Apostle-Bish- 
op, and  here  you  see  the  qualifications  inquired  for. 

Obj.  5.  It  is  objected  by  Mr.  Hart,  that  "  Elders  are 
never  named  [in  Scripture]  in  conjunction  with  Bishops." 
From  this  it  is  inferred  that  the  titles,  "  Elder"  and  "  Bish- 
op" were  interchangeable;  and  hence — because  the  name 
Bishop  was  sometimes  applied  to  common  pastors — it  is 
concluded  by  him  that  there  was  no  superior  officer  in  the 
Church,  p.  7. 

Answer.  This  objection,  like  the  first,  is  built  upon  the 
shifting  sense  of  a  word — the  mere  use  of  a  name.  Had 
Mr.  Hart  known  that  no  well  informed  Episcopalian  thinks 
of  contending  that  the  name  Bishop  was,  in  that  age,  ap- 
propriated to  the  first  order;  had  he  known  that  we  admit 
this  title,  as  used  in  Scripture,  to  be  perfectly  synonymous 
with  that  of  Elder;  and  that  we  even  claim  that  this  superior 
grade  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  Bible,  in  persons  bearing 
other  names  than  that  of  "  Bishop,"  he  would  not  have 
asked  so  many  impertinent  questions  as  he  has  under  this 
head.     He  seems  to  have  thought  that  if  a  name  could  not  be 

*  2  Tim.  iii.  15.  t  2  Tim.  i.  6.  \\  Tim.  vi,  12. 


54 

claimed,  the  thing  contended  for,  must,  also,  be  surrendered. 
Not  so.  Without  the  least  hazard  to  the  Episcopal  scheme 
may  it  be  admitted  that  common  pastors  were  called  Bishop 
till  after  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  so  long  as  we  can  show 
from  acts,  that  there  were  ecclesiastical  officers,  of  any  or  of 
no  distinctive  name,  possessed  of  such  ministerial  rights  and 
powers  as  made  them  Bishops  over  these  Presbyter-Bishops. 
Such  officers  there  were,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Apostles, 
in  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  in  "the  angels  of  the  seven 
Churches."  The  short  and  decisive  answer  then  to  all 
such  questions  as  ask,  "  Where  was  the  Bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem."— "  Where  was  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus"  is,  you  see 
him  in  the  presiding  Apostle:  James  was  that  superior  officer 
in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem;  and,  at  the  time  of  the  inter- 
view at  Miletus,  Paul  was  the  man  who  sustained  that  re- 
lation to  the  Elders  of  Ephesus,  Timothy  not  being,  as  yet, 
set  over  that  Church. 

To  the  inquiry,  why  did  not  Peter  salute  these  superior 
officers  as  well  as  "  the  Elders"  in  those  regions  in  which 
he  designed  his  Epistles  to  circulate,  our  reply  is,  at  that 
early  day,  A.  D.  61,  it  is  not  probable  that  any  such  officer 
was  resident  among  "  the  strangers  scattered  throughout 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  snd  Bythinia;"  the 
presumption  being,  that  each  of  these  isolated  Churches  then 
had  for  its  chief  minister  the  Apostle  who  had  planted  it. 

Obj.  6.  Again  it  is  objected  by  Mr.  Hart,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures give  us  no  account  of  the  ordination  of  an  order  supe- 
rior to  Presbyters,  p.  8. 

Ansioer  1.  This  objection  would  be  of  no  force  even  if 
we  were  unable  to  instance  one  case  of  elevation  to  the  su- 
perior order  in  question;  for  the  recording  of  such  transac- 
tions was,  manifestly,  far  from  being  a  prominent  object 
with  the  sacred  writers.  What  do  we  know  of  the  ordina- 
tion of  those  many  ministers  who  are  mentioned  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and  in  their  Epistles?  Mr.  Hart  says  "  we 
have  an  account  of  the  ordination  of  Paul,  Barnabas,  and 
Timothy."  Of  the  two  former,  this  is  not  so;  the  first,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  never  set  apart  by  any  human  hands; 
of  the  ordination  of  the  second  we  have  no  account;  and 
even  the  laying  on  of  hands  on  Timothy,  is  mentioned  only 
incidentally.  Indeed  it  is  only  in  this  incidental  way,  that 
with  two  or  three  exceptions,  any  ordinations  are  noticed  in 
the  Scriptures.  So  that  were  we  unable  to  produce  a  single 
case  of  setting  apart  to  an  office  in  the  Church  superior  to 
that  of  Eldership,  it  would  be  no  proof  that  there  is  no  such 
office.     But — 

Answer  2.  We    can  produce   a  case;  it    is  found   in  the 


55 

elevation  of  Matthias  to  the  Apostleship.*  In  being  raised 
to  that  station  he  was,  of  course,  made  to  participate  not 
only  in  the  inspired  part  of  the  Apostles  character,  but  also 
in  whatever  ordinary  powers  may  have  been  entrusted  to 
them.  The  eleven  we  have  seen  did  possess  superior  rights 
and  standing  as  ministers.  Hence  it  follows,  inasmuch  as 
Matthias  must  have  been  made  equal  to  them  in  this  res- 
pect, that  in  the  setting  apart  of  this  Apostle  we  have  a 
case  of  ordination  to  the  superior  order  of  the  ministry. 
The  Episcopal  claim,  then,  yet  stands  good. 

Obj.  7.  But  again  it  is  objected,  by  Mr.  Hart,  that  "  the 
Bible  prescribes  no  duties''^  for  an  order  of  ministers,  supe- 
rior to  Presbyters,  p.  9. 

Answer.  This  allegation  is  wholly  untrue.  The  Scrip- 
tures do  prescribe  special  duties  for  such  an  order  of  officers. 
Who  else  is  directed  to  ordain — who  else  has  a  warrant  to 
"  rebuke"  offending  ministers'?  Full  as  the  Bible  is  of  rules 
for  the  guidance  of  common  pastors,  it  is  more  abundant  in 
instructions  to  those  whom  God  hath  set  over  them.  What 
is  the  greater  part  of  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
made  up  of  but  directions  to  such  ministers'?  This  objection 
is  therefore,  utterly  without  foundation. 

Obj.  8.  Another  objection  urged  by  Mr.  H.  against  im- 
parity is,  that  "  the  duties  assigned  exclusively  to  Bishops 
by  Episcopalians,  are,  in  the  Bible,  expressly  enjoined  upon 
Presbyters."  p.  9. 

.Answer  1.  So  far  as  Ordination  is  concerned,  we  are  war- 
ranted in  saying,  that  this  assertion  is  utterly  groundless; 
for  after  a  thorough  examination  of  all  the  instances  claimed 
by  Mr.  Hart,  we  could  find  no  passage  in  the  Bible  in  which 
'^  Presbyters  are  directed  to  ordain." 

Answer  2.  As  to  ConJirmation,f  it  is  certain  that  not  all 
who  are  commissioned  to  preach,  can  administer  it;  else, 
when  Philip  had  converted  and  baptized  a  number  of  the 
Samaritans,  it  had  not  been  necessary  to  send  thither  two 
Apostles  from  Jerusalem  to  give  this  rite  of  laying  on  ol 
hands. I  At  least,  the  Scriptures  furnish  no  warrant  to  any 
ministers  to  confirm,  but  only  such  as  are  in  that  superior 
grade,  which  Apostles  once  filled.  The  objection  therefore 
does  not  bear  examination  in  regard  to  this  particular. 


*  Acts  i.  16—26. 

I  If  any  one  wishes  to  see  the  lawfulness  of  this  rite  vindicated  ;  and  the  obli- 
gation resting  on  every  Christian  to  receive  it  clearly  shown  ;  lie  may  do  so  by 
reading  "  The  Pastor's  Testimony,"  by  the  Rev,  J.  A.  Clark. 

}  Acts  viii.  M— 17. 


56 

Answer^.  With  respect  to  Government, ih.e  objection  states 
an  untruth.  It  is  not  true  that  Episcopalians  hold  that 
"  the  power  of  ruling  belongs  only  to  Bishops."  They  do, 
indeed,  maintain  that  these  superior  officers  are,  under  God, 
the  only  source  of  ecclesiastical  authority;  which  is  a  self- 
evident  truth  in  view  of  the  fact,  that  they  are  Christ's 
only  ordainers;  but  that  all  power  of  government  is  so  vest- 
ed in  them  that  none  in  the  Church  but  they  can  administer 
it,  in  any  degree,  is  what  no  Episcopalian  ever  asserts: 
For  the  right  of  every  Presbyter  to  exercise  discipline 
among  his  own  flock  is  understood  to  be  inherent  in  his 
commission.  His  acts,  it  is  true,  are  subject  to  Episcopal 
oversight  and  revision :  still  it  is  his  right  to  administer  disci- 
pline— no  Bishop  may  take  it  from  him.  The  power  of 
ruling  then  is  not  vested  "  exclusively"  in  these  superior 
officers. 

Still,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  there  are  necessary  acts 
of  government  which  the  common  pastor  has  no  commission 
to  exercise.  For  example:  while  he  may  rule  his  flock,  he 
has  no  authority  to  administer  discipline  to  a  fellow  Pres- 
byter: to  receive  an  accusation  against  an  Elder,  to  try, 
rebuke,  suspend,  or  degrade  him,  as  need  may  require,  is 
what  a  common  pastor  can  show  no  warrant  for  doing. 
Timothy,  the  Apostle-Bishop  was  the  only  minister  in  all 
Ephesus  who  had  authority  to  execute  such  acts.  So  it 
must  be  now;  common  pastors  cannot  perform  these  neces- 
sary duties.  Therefore,  the  objection  under  consideration 
which  is  based  upon  the  assumption,  that  a  superior  officer 
is  unnecessary,  falls  to  the  ground. 

Obj.  9.  Again  it  is  objected  to  the  Episcopal  scheme, 
by  Mr.  Hart,  that  "  it  is  impossible  for  Diocesan  Bishops  to 
perform  to  the  people  of  their  extensive  charge,  certain  du- 
ties— particularly  being  an  ensample  to  the  flock — w^hich 
the  Gospel  enjoins   on  all  settled  as  stationary  ministers." 

P-  11. 

Answer.  This  objection  is  as  applicable  to  St.  Paul  as   to 

modern  Bishops;  and  would  Mr.  Hart  have  dared  to  assert, 
that  the  Apostle  was  not  an  example  to  the  Christians  of  all 
those  extensive  regions  over  which  he  traveled?  With  what 
consistency,  then,  could  he  who  would  have  shrunk  from 
such  a  declaration,  urge  this  objection  against  Diocesan 
Bishops?  An  objection  which  proves  too  much,  proves 
nothing. 

Obj.  10.  Once  more  it  is  objected,  by  Mr.  Hart,  that  "  the 
subjects  of  a  Diocesan  Bishop  cannot  perform  their  duties 
to  him  as  a  Gospel  minister,  p.  11. 


57 

Answer  1.  To  this  we  reply,  as  we  did  to  the  preceding 
objection,  that  it  bears  as  hard  against  that  multitude  of 
Christians  of  whom  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  had 
the  spiritual  supervision,  as  it  can  against  modern  Episco- 
palians. 

Jinswer  2.  But  it  is  not  true  that  we  cannot  perform 
toward  our  Diocesan,  the  duties  which  a  Christian  people 
owe  to  a  Gospel  minister.  In  proof  of  this,  the  writer  of 
these  pages  may  be  allowed  to  testify,  for  himself  and  in 
behalf  of  his  people,  that  we  "  know^'  him  who  is  over  us, 
in  this  capacity,  as  one  who  "  labors  in  word  and  doctrine;" 
and  as  one  whom  we  "  esteem  very  highly,  in  love  for  his 
work's  sake." 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  whole  of  Mr.  Hart's  objec^ 
tions  against  Episcopacy,  which  are  pretended  to  be  based 
on  Scripture,  and  one  by  one,  we  have  seen  them  vanish. 
Their  advancement  has  but  served  to  strengthen  us  in  the 
conviction  that  the  Episcopal  scheme  is  divine;  for  it  has 
showed  us  that  nothing  can  be  brought  from  the  Bible 
against  it,  which  may  not  easily  be  set  aside.  And  here 
we  might  close  our  examination.  Having  seen  that  Episco- 
pacy is  not  only  consonant  with  the  w^ord  of  God,  but  pos- 
itively enjoined  by  it;  we  may  with  reason  ask,  what  need 
there  is  of  going  further.  There  is  none;  if  Episcopacy 
bear  the  test  of  Scripture,  it  is  surely  enough.  But  since 
this  advocate  for  Presbyterianism  has  seen  fit  to  attempt, 
under  the  head  we  are  now  examing,  to  make  the  Fathers 
and  Reformers  bear  witness  that  there  was,  in  their  day,  no 
officer  in  the  Church  superior  to  Presbyters,  it  may  be  well  for 
us  to  follow  him  over  the  ground  of  antiquity,  to  see  hoW 
little  force  there  is  in  his  objections  drawn  from  this  source. 
But  of  this  we  shall  make  speedy  work;  for  since  we  have 
seen,  in  considering  "  the  Presbyterian  scheme,"  that  Mr. 
Hart  was  unable  to  bring  any  authorities  from  the  Fathers 
or  Reformers  in  favor  oi  it,  which  would  bear  investigation; 
we  are  warranted  to  conclude,  before  entering  on  the  exam- 
ination, that  no  solid  objections  can  be  raised  on  their  testi- 
mony against  Episcopacy. 

Obj.  11.  Still  it  is  urged,  by  Hr.  Hart,  that  "it  is  ap- 
parent from  the  Fathers  of  the  first  and  second  centuries, 
that  in  the  primitive  Church  there  were  no  ministers  superior 
to  Presbyters."  p.  12.     In  support  of  this  alledged  fact — 

1.  He  first  cites,  what  he  calls  testimony  in  its  favor, 
from  Clement  of  Rome.  But  the  very  language  which  he 
quotes  from  this  Father,  proves  the  direct  contrary:  "  The 
Apostles  went  forth*     *     *     *     and     *     *     *     «     con- 

8 


58 

stifuted  the  first  fruits  of  their  ministry  for  Bishops  and 
Deacons."  Here  in  the  Apostles,  and  Bishops,*  and  Dea- 
cons, we  find  our  three  orders.  Clement  of  Rome,  then, 
does  not  support  the  objection. 

2.  His  next  witness  is  Ignatius.  After  seeing  the  quota- 
tions which  have  already  been  made  from  this  Father, 
we  may  well  be  surprised  that  any  man  should  presumptu- 
ously attempt  to  show  from  his  writings,  that  there  was  no 
officer  in  the  Church  in  his  day,  corresponding  to  our  modern 
Bishops.  Mr.  Hart  would  have  us  believe,  that  since  this 
Father  uses  the  word  Church  in  the  singular  in  his  Epistles, 
there  could  have  been  but  one  congregation  in  each  of  the 
cities  to  which  he  wrote.  Had  Mr.  Hart  forgotten  that  in 
Ephesus,  one  of  these  cities,  Christians  had  becorhe  so  nu- 
merous more  than  fifty  years  before  this  as  to  require  the 
services  of  many  ministers?!  And  when  he  was  making 
his  quotation  from  the  address  of  Ignatius'  Epistle  "  To 
the  Church  in  Philadelphia,"  did  he  not  see  it  added  within 
a  half  dozen  lines,  "if  they  are  at  unity  with  the  Bishop, 
and  the  Presbyters  that  are  with  him,  and  the  Deacons'''' ? 
Whatever  Ignatius  did  mean  by  his  "  one  altar,"  &c.,  no 
one  who  reads  his  Epistles  with  a  candid  eye,  can  question 
that  he  knew  of  no  ministry  but  one  of  three  orders.  J  As 
many  as  thirty  times,  within  the  compass  of  a  few  pages, 
does  he,  in  one  way  and  another,  declare  the  Christian 
Ministry  to  be  of  this  form.  Ignatius,  then,  instead  of  sus- 
taining the  objection  under  examination,  is  at  utter  war  with 
it.  Mr.  Hart  could  never  have  seen  these  Epistles.  He 
must  have  been  ignorant  of  their  contents.  By  no  other 
supposition  can  his  woful  misrepresentations  of  this  author's 
testimony  be  reconciled  with  the  idea  of  common  honesty. 

3.  His  next  witness  is  Polycarp.  But  he  cannot  be  made 
to  bear  testimony  against  Episcopacy.  For  this  Father 
certainly  held  to  the  three  orders  as  strongly  as  his  fellow 
Scholar  Ignatius.  This  can  be  made  to  appear  from  that 
very  Epistle  of  his  to  the  Philippians  from  which  Mr.  Hart 
has  quoted  to  prove  him  a  Presbyterian.  In  that  Epistle  he 
endorses,  and  thereby  adopts  the  sentiments  of  Ignatius  on 
this  subject.  Thus,  in  his  Epistle  he  says  to  the  Philip- 
pians, "  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  which  he  wrote  unto  us, 
together  with  what  others  of  his  as  have  come  into  our 
hands,  we  have  sent  unto  you,     *     *     *     *     ^y  which  you 


*  We  agree  with  Mr.  Hart,  that  Presbyter-Bishops  are  here  intended. 
+  See  Acts,  xx. 

X  It  is  the  wish  of  the  writer  of  these  pages,  that  every  one  may  examine  these 
Epistles  for  himself. 


59 

may  be  greatly  profited."  One  of  these  transmitted  Epistles 
must  have  been  that  which  Ignatius  had  sent  to  the  Srayr- 
ncans,  Polycarp's  own  people  ;  and  in  that  Epistle  the  fol- 
lowing language  is  held,  "  follow  your  Bishop  as  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Father;  and  the  Presbytery  as  the  Apostles;  and 
reverence  the  Deacons. ^^  This,  with  much  more  of  the 
same  import,  Polycarp  endorses  by  sending  it  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  with  the  assurance  that  thereby  they  might  "  be 
greatly  profited."  Polycarp,  then,  who,  at  the  time  of  wri- 
ting the  Epistle  in  question,  seems  to  have  been  acting  as 
Bishop  of  the  Church  at  Philippi,  as  well  as  being  the  actual 
Bishop  of  Smyrna,  cannot  be  regarded  as  sustaining  the 
objection. 

4.  Mr.  Hart's  next  witness  is  Justin  Martyr.  But  the 
quotation  from  him  is  not  in  point:  for  his  description  of 
public  worship  suits  an  Episcopal  congregation  as  well  as 
any  other;  and  since  neither  he  nor  any  wa-iter  of  his  age, 
gives  us  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that  there  was  then, 
any  religious  assemblies  other  than  Episcopal,  to  assume 
that  there  was,  is  unwarrantable.  Justin,  then,  does  not 
sustain  the  objection. 

5.  The  next  w^itness  cited  is  Irenseus.  And  the  quo- 
tations which  Mr.  H.  has  made  from  this  Father,  as  quoted 
by  him,  apparently  lend  some  countenance  to  the  objection. 
But  it  is  only  in  appearance:  the  seeming  Presbyterian  cast 
of  the  passages  cited  from  this  author,  is  given  to  them, 
simply  by  his  applying  to  Bishops  the  name  of  Presbyter: — 
such  an  application  he  plainly  makes,  and  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  greater  contains  the  less — a  Bishop  being 
also  a  Presbyter,  and  without  impropriety,  so  styled.  That 
those  to  whom  the  language  is  applied  were  so,  is  proveable: 
thus,  in  the  third  chapter  of  his  third  book  against  heresies, 
he  has  occasion  to  speak  of  the  succession  of  those  whom, 
in  a  general  but  unofficial  sense,  he  sometimes  denominates 
Presbyters^  but  always  officially.  Bishops — wishing  to  show 
how  perfect  the  chain  was  in  every  place,  he  takes,  for 
illustration,  the  Church  of  Rome  and,  though  it  had  nu- 
merous common  pastors,*  traces  the  sucession  of  only  a  sin- 
gle individual — the  Bishop.     This  is  decisive  as  to  the  de- 

*  That  there  were  numerous  common  pastors  in  Rome  at  this  lime  (A.  D.  176.J 
we  infer  (.J  ~)  from  the  circnmstance  that  we  find  in  other  popnlons  cities,  as  Eph 
sens,  a  rompanij  of  FJders  even  in  the  A  postolic  times,  Acts  xx  ;  (2)  from  the  fact 
that  St.  Paul's  Ci)istle  to  ihe  Christians  of  Rome  tnakes  mention  of  several  per 
sons,  who,  at  that  early  day,  seem  to  have  been  acting  there  in  this  capacity, 
Rom.  xvi.  3 — 12;  and  (3)  from  the  additional  fact  that  not  more  than  fifty  years 
after  the  time  in  question  there  certainly  were  forty-six  ministers  in  that  city.— 
See  Eusehins,  B.  vi.  c.  43. 


60 

scription  of  officers,  of  whose  succession  he  speaks:  it  makes 
it  clear  that  they  were  peculiar  Presbyters — ministers  of  the 
highest  grade. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  following  declaration 
of  Irenseus,  "  We  can  enumerate  those  w^io  were  appointed 
by  the  Apostles,  Bishops  in  the  Churches  and  their  succes- 
sors even  unto  us — the  succession  of  all  the  Churches  ;"  he 
cannot  be  here  speaking  of  mere  Presbyters,  the  number  of 
whom  up  to  his  day,  "  in  all  the  Churches,  must  have  been 
many  thousands — this  is  not  credible.  When,  therefore,  he 
speaks  of  successors  of  the  Apostles — call  them  by  what 
name  he  wuU — he  must  be  understood  to  intend  Bishops  pro- 
per. Irenaeus,  then,  is  not  the  witness  to  sustain  Mr.  Hart's 
objection. 

6.  His  next  witness  is  Tertulian.  In  the  passage  quoted 
from  him,  there  is  nothing  which  does  not  agree  perfectly 
with  the  management  of  a  congregation  by  an  Episcopal 
Presbyter,  not  excepting  the  particular  of  discipline  ;  for, 
as  we  have  before  had  occasion  to  remark,  it  is  not  true  that 
this  order  of  Episcopal  ministers  are  denied  the  right  of  ex- 
ercising this  powder.  Tertulian,  then,  does  not  bear  witness 
against  "the  Episcopal  scheme;"  but  on  the  contrary  he 
is  an  unanswerable  witness  for  it,  in  numerous  places. 

7.  The  next  witness  cited  by  Mr.  H.,  is  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria. But  neither  does  Clement  speak  at  all  to  his  pur- 
pose. The  most  that  the  quotation  made  from  him  can 
prove  is,  that  he,  like  Irenseus,  sometimes  calls  a  Bishop 
proper  by  the  unofficial  name  of  Presbyter.*  That  this 
writer  is  no  witness  against  Episcopacy,  let  the  following 
unambiguous  language  of  his  testify: — "  Jn  the  Church,  the 
orders  of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons  are,  I  think, 
imitations  of  the  angelic  glory." — Stromata,  Book  VI. 

We  have  now  come  down,  in  our  examination  of  the  au- 
thors cited  by  Mr  Hart,  to  the  third  century.  And  do  we 
not,  as  inquirers  and  examiners,  feel  at  this  point  that  this 
advocate  of  Presbyterianism  has  failed  to  show  from  the 
Fathers,  that  in  the  first  and  second  centuries  there  were  no 
ministers  in  the  Church   superior  to  Presbyters'?     Has  not 

*  This  langiia<je  which  has  given  rise  to  so  ranch  debate,  might  have  been  eas- 
ily disposed  of,  liad  men  examined  all  the  places  where  it  occurs,  in  connection. 
In  all  the  places  referred  to,  and  many  others  not  noticed,  the  word  "Presbyters'' 
was  apolied  to  theie  ancient  and  honorable  men,  who  had  gone  lirjorc  the  tcriter, 
whether  living  or  dead,  and  is  precisely  equivalent  to  onr  present  use  of  the  word 
*'  Fathers."  Tims,  Apostles  themselves  are  called  Presbyters  by  Papias,  and 
IrenoBiis  who  was  the  disciple  of  Papias  copied  his  phraseology.  It  seems  to  mo 
perfectly  certain,  on  a  comparison  of  all  the  places  where  this  language  occnrs, 
VhaJ  thu  uama  Presbyter  is  never  applied  to  a  Disiiop  in  an  olFicial  xense. 


61 

our  investigation  of  the  passages  quoted  from  the  early  wri- 
ters deepened  our  conviction  of  the  truth,  that  Episcopacy 
was  established  by  the  Apostles,  acting  under  the  guidance 
of  inspiration;  that  it  was  designed  to  be  permanent,  and 
that  it  every  where  prevailed ]  But  we  have  one  more  tes- 
timony, from  the  Fathers  to  examine. 

8.  This  last  witness  is  Jerome,  a  writer  of  the  fourth 
century.  Mr  H.  has  made  copious  extracts  from  this  Fa- 
ther, and  is  very  confident  that  in  him  he  has  found  one  who 
sustains  his  objection.  But  here,  too,  the  author  of  "  A 
Letter  to  a  Friend,"  was  mistaken.  Jerome  expressly  de- 
clares that  Bishops  in  the  modern  sense,  were  appointed  as 
early  as  that  time  "  when  every  one  began  to  think  that 
those  whom  he  baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's," 
and  when  it  began  to  be  said  among  the  people  "  I  am  of 
Paul;  I  of  ApoUos;  and  I  of  Cephas;"*  and  when  was  this 
but  in  Apostolic  times'?  To  urge  that  Jerome  held  Bishops 
and  Presbyters  to  be  equal,  is  in  vain,  because  it  is  untrue: 
all  that  Mr.  Hart  has  transcribed  from  this  Father  to  make 
it  appear  that  Bishops  are  not  superior  to  Presbyters,  is  per- 
fectly neutralized  and  shown  to  be  false  in  the  sense  in 
which  he  has  taken  it,  by  the  following  sentence:  "  What 
can  a  Bishop  do,  which  a  Presbyter  may  not  do  except  Or- 
dinaiion.^^i  These  last  two  words  render  Jerome's  testimo- 
ny useless  to  Mr.  Hart's  purpose.  So  long  as  they  stand  in 
the  epistle  to  Evagrius  this  Father  must  be  accounted  a  wit- 
ness, not  for  Presbyterianism  but  for  Episcopacy.  Jerome, 
then,  does  not  sustain  the  objection.  And  as  its  author 
brings  nothing  further  to  its  support,  it,  of  course,  falls  to 
the  ground. 

And  here  let  it  be  distinctly  observed  that  the  failure  to 
sustain  this  objection  shows  that  "  the  Episcopal  scheme," 
— which  w^e  have  seen  to  be  founded  in  Scripture,  and  to 
admit  of  an  easy  vindication  from  all  objections  that  can  be 
waged  against  it,  on  Bible  grounds — is  entirely  consonant 
with  the  views  of  the  Fathers.  Nay  more:  so  clearly  do 
these  ancient  witnesses,  one  and  all,  contradict  what  is  as- 
serted in  the  objection,  and  that  frequently  in  the  very  pas- 
sages which  Mr.  H.  has  advanced  to  sustain  it,  that  we  can 
but  see  that  instead  of  denying,  they  affirm,  with  a  united 
voice,  that  in  their  day,  there  was  an  order  of  ministers  in 
the  Church,  superior  to  Presbyters. 

Obj.  12.  Once  more   and   finally,    it  is  objected   by  Mr. 

•  See  his  Commentary  on  Titus  i,  7. 
t  Epistio  to  Evagrius,  or  Evangiliim. 


62 

Hart,  that  "•  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  first  reformers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  that  there  is,  according  to  the  Gospel, 
no  distinction  between  Bishops  and  Presbyters."  p.  20. 

Answer  1.  Were  this  as  is  alledged  what  w^ould  it  amount 
to?  The  Reformers  were  not  the  founders  of  the  Church. 
Their  fallible  opinions  are  to  be  tried  by  Scripture,  and  the 
testimony  ol  antiquity — the  rule  by  which  they  themselves 
tested  all  doctrines  and  opinions,  and  by  which  they  ever 
desired  to  have  their  own  views  and  teachings  judged.  If, 
therefore,  they  have  said  ought  against  Episcopacy,  a  doc- 
trine which  we  have  seen  to  be  founded  in  Scripture,  and 
received  by  the  Fathers,  their  teaching  in  this  particular,  is 
to  be  rejected  as  error,  and  that  by  their  own  wish. 

Answer  2.  But  it  is  not  true  that  the  English  Reformers 
ever  denied  that  there  are  three  orders  in  the  ministry,  af- 
ter they  became  Protestant.  We  repeat,  what  we  have 
elsewhere  said,  that  their  opinions  on  this  point  and  others 
at  the  time  of  issuing  the  two  books  entitled  "  The  Institu- 
tion of  a  Christian  Man,"  and  "  A  Necessary  Erudition  of 
a  Christian  Man,"  were,  on  most  points  thoroughly  Popish, 
as  the  books  themselves  prove.  Would  we  see  the  senti- 
ments of  Cranmer  and  other  worthies  expressed  after  they 
became  thoroughly  Protestant,  we  must  turn  in  the  Prayer 
Book  to  "  The  Preface"  to  the  Ordination  Offices.*  There 
we  find  it  declared  by  the  martyred  compilers  of  those 
offices,  that  "  It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading 
Holy  Scripture  and  Ancient  Authors,  that  from  the  Apos- 
tles' time,  there  have  been  these  orders  of  ministers  in 
Christ's  Church, — Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  *  * 
*  and  *  *  *  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to 
be  a  lawful  [God's  law  is  here  intended]  Bishop,  Priest,  or 
Deacon,  *  *  *  except  he  be  admitted  thereunto  ac- 
cording to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  Epis- 
copal consecration  or  ordination." 

This  is  decisive  as  to  the  opinion  of  the  English  Reform- 
ers. It  is  not  true,  then,  that  Cranmer  and  his  honored 
associates  ever,  as  Protestants,  advocated  or  countenanced 
Presbyterianism.  Nor  is  it  true,  that  Dr.  Bancroft  was  the 
first  man,  or  "  one  of  the  first,"  who  taught  in  the  English 
Church  that  Episcopacy  is  divine:  long  before  his  advocacy 
of  these  views,  they  had  been  set  forth  by  Cranmer  and  his 
cotemporaries  in  the  language  above  quoted  from  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.     The  divine  origin  of  Episcopacy  was 


*  This  was  drawn  up  bv  Cranniek-  and  otliers  during  ilie  reiL'n  ofEdward  VI., 
A.  D. 1549. 


63 

not,  therefore,  "  a  new  doctrine"  among  Protestants  "  in 
the  year  1588."  In  the  ordination  service,  composed  by 
Cranmer  and  others  near  forty  years  before,  they  had  taught 
the  people  to  acknowledge  that  "  Almighty  God  *  *  * 
by  his  Holy  Spirit  has  appointed  divers  orders  of  ministers 
in  his  Church.*  The  testimony  of  the  Reformers,  then, 
instead  of  being  against,  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  Episco- 
pacy. 

We  have  now  done  with  Mr.  Hart.  And  what  is  the  re- 
suit?  We  have  ascertained  that  his  own  theory — upon 
which  he  had  no  right,  as  a  Congregational  minister  to  de- 
fend his  ordination,  is  utterly  groundless,  both  as  respects 
Antiquity  and  Scripture;  and  in  the  examination  just  closed, 
we  have  seen  that  his  objections  to  Episcopacy  are  equally 
unfounded.  His  whole  argument  is  plainly  built  on  unwar- 
ranted assumptions  and  misrepresentations  of  facts.  These 
being  exposed  and  taken  away,  there  is  nothing  left. 

Our  object  in  this  investigation  has  been  to  get  at  the 
truth.  And  do  we  now  see  precisely  where,  according  to 
the  evidence,  it  lies?  Is  it  not  true,  we  have  ascertained 
that  every  non-Episcopal  kind  of  ministry  is  unscriptural, 
being  traceable  no  further  back  than  the  sixteenth  century? 
Have  we  not  seen,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Episcopal  is 
the  exact  form  of  ministry  which  was  created  by  the  Apostles 
— which  was  universal  in  the  early  Church — which  was  the 
only  ministry  called  Christian  for  1500  years — and  which  was 
declared  to  be  divine  by  the  martyred  Reformers  ?  Our  facts 
we  think,  prove  all  this.  Let  them  be  re-examined.  And 
if  they  bear  investigation — if  they  clearly  lead  to  these 
conclusions,  does  it  not  follow  that  he  who  is  in  connection 
with  the  Episcopal  ministry,  should  abide  there,  and  that  he 
who  is  separated  from  it  should  at  once  flee  to  it?  Does 
not  conscience  require  this?  Does  not  God  require  it?  If 
this,  and  this  alone,  be  Christ's  ministry,  as  facts  seem 
clearly  to  prove  it  to  be,  is  not  he  who  sees  this  to  be  so, 
doing  wrong  if  he  remain  in  connection  with  any  other? 
These  are  questions  which  every  humble  minded  Christian 
who  reads  these  pages  must  ask  himself.  Try  to  put  them 
aside  as  he  may,  they  will  confront  him,  and  demand  an 
answer.  They  must  be  met — fairly  and  honestly  met — 
every  one  will  feel  that  his  moral  sense  forbids  an  evasion 
of  them.  And  if  they  be  met,  what  reply  but  an  affirmative 
one  can  be  made? 

How,  then,   can  any  refuse  to  connect  themselves  with 


*  See  Collect  in  the  Service  for  the  ordaining  of  Priests. 


64 

the  Episcopal  ministry?  Shall  he  who  feels  constrained 
to  acknowledge  its  claims,  dare  to  continue  to  stand  aloof 
from  it1  How  wall  he  answer  for  it  to  his  abused  con- 
science; above  all,  how  will  he  answer  for  it  to  his  injured 
Saviour — the  Great  head  of  the  Church? 

Will  it  be  plead  that  there  are  objections  to  Episcopacy, 
not  yet  stated  and  answered  on  these  pages,  of  sufficient 
weight  to  justify  one  wdio  even  admits  all  that  is  claimed  in 
regard  to  its  origin  in  witholding  himself  from  an  embrace- 
ment  of  if?  Let  us  inquire  what  these  remaining  difficul- 
ties are,  w'hich  are  pretended  to  be  so  formidable,  as  to 
prevent  the  adoption  of  what  is  seen  to  be  truth? 

1.  Is  it  objected  that  the  succession  in  the  line  of  Bishops 
has  been  lost,  and  that  therefore  the  claims  of  Episcopacy 
have  ceased  to  be  binding? 

The  objection  states  what  is  not  true;  and,  of  course,  the 
inference  drawn  from  it  is  unwarranted.  The  succession 
is  traceable  right  up  to  the  Apostles:  so  clear  and  strong  is 
the  evidence  of  this,  that  it  may  be  said  to  be  morally  cer- 
tain that  the  present  Bishops  of  the  Epsicopal  Church  have 
received  their  commission  from  Christ,  through  an  unbroken 
line  of  their  own  order.     See  Appendix. 

2.  Is  it  objected  that  the  succession  has  come  to  us  through 
a  corrupt  channel?  So  has  the  Bible.  But  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other  has  thereby  lost  aught  of  its  original  worth. 
As  gold  is  not  injured  by  passing  through  the  hands  of  the 
abandoned  and  the  vile,  so  neither  are  spiritual  treasures; 
deceitfully  as  they  may  have  been  handled,  still  they  retain 
all  their  preciousness.  Be  the  channel  through  which  the 
ministry  has  come  to  us,  ever  so  corrupt,  not  one  whit  does 
it  or  can  it  diminish  its  value — spite  the  wickedness  of  man 
it  remains  the  same.  And  where  but  through  the  same 
"  corrupt  channel"  do  the  Presbyterians  trace  their  alledged 
unbroken  succession? 

3.  It  is  objected  that  Episcopacy,  though  established  at 
first  as  a  divine  institution,  was  not  designed  to  be  perma- 
nent? We  ask,  how  does  this  appear?  There  is  certainly 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  institution  which  seems  to  re- 
quire its  abrogation.  For  any  thing  that  can  be  seen  to  the 
contrary,  it  is  as  well  suited  to  the  wants  of  man  now  as  it 
was  at  the  first  promulgation  of  the  Gospel.  And  to  aban- 
don it,  under  such  circumstances,  for  new  inventions,  looks 
vastly  like  an  attempt  in  improve  on  God's  plan.  And  even 
did  a  change  appear  ever  so  desirable,  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  no  man  or  body  of  men  on  earth,  have  power  to  alter 
or  amend  it.     God  alone  may  change  a  divine  institution. 


I 


65 

And  since  Episcopacy  can  neither  be  shown  to  have  been 
abrogated  by  Him  who  established  it,  nor  its  continuance  to 
be  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  idle  to  question 
whether  it  was  designed  to  be  permanent ; — as  well  might  it 
be  doubted  whether  the  sacraments  were  intended  for  other 
than  the  Apostolic  age. 

4.  Is  it  objected  that  the  union  of  all  Christians  under  one 
form  of  ministry  according  to  the  Episcopal  scheme,  would 
deprive  them  of  that  stimulus  to  exertion  which  the  rivalry 
of  sectarianism  produces  ?  This  objection  slanders  Chris- 
tianity,— it  asserts  that  it  cannot  live  and  flourish  without 
the  aid  of  those  external  impulses  which  "  the  children  of 
this  world"  depend  upon  for  keeping  up  an  interest  in  their 
earthly  schemes.  The  expression  of  such  a  sentiment  is  a 
libel  on  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  that  religion  there 
is  an  inherent  vital  power  which,  lodged  in  the  heart  of  the 
Church,  is  sufficient,  in  itself,  to  urge  her  on  to  the  walling 
performance  of  the  great  and  difficult  work  to  which  her 
Lord  hath  commissioned  her.  If  she  but  feel,  in  her  every 
member,  this  vital  energy  as  she  ought,  she  needs  not  the 
aid  which  the  earth-born  spirit  of  competition  may  lend. 
And  it  may  be  asked,  can  that  be  hurtful  for  which  the 
Saviour  prayed  ?  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  He  who  knew  all 
things  would  have  asked  that  his  followers  might  all  "  be 
one,"  had  he  seen  that  unity  would  be  injurious  to  his 
Church  ?  And,  further,  pertinently  may  it  be  inquired,  did 
the  oneness  of  the  Ministry  in  Apostolic  and  primitive  days 
render  the  Church  supine  and  inactive  ?  Did  not  the  Word 
of  God  then  mightily  grow  and  prevail  1  And  did  the  same 
unity  now  exist — were  there  but  one  Ministry  serving  an 
undivided  people,  how  much  better  would  be  the  state  of 
things, — how  much  less  biting  and  devouring  one  another 
would  there  be  among  those  who  name  themselves  of  Christ? 
And  having  no  sectarian  interest  to  support,  how  much 
would  ability  be  increased  for  giving  the  Gospel  to  others. 
Unity,  then — a  mere  external  unity,  not  to  speak  of  any 
other,  instead  of  being  hurtful,  would  be  vastly  beneficial. 

5.  Is  it  objected  to  Episcopacy  that,  though  adapted  to 
man's  situation  generally,  yet  it  is  not  suited  to  the  free 
institutions  of  this  country,  and  consequently,  to  us  as  a 
people  1  This  is  a  mistake.  In  her  plan  of  legislation, 
the  Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States  is  strictly 
republican.  All  who  are  governed  by  her  laws  are  allowed 
to  take  part  in  enacting  them.  Every  thing  is  done  by  rep- 
resentation. Her  Diocesan  and  General  Conventions,  both 
in  respect  to  the   principle  of  their  formation  and  their 

9 


§6 

method  of  transacting  business,  are  strikingly  similar  to  oiii' 
State  Legislatures  and  National  Congress.  Indeed,  the  one 
is,  in  these  particulars,  almost  the  exact  similitude  of  the 
other.  The  charge  of  anti-republicanism,  therefore,  can- 
not lie  against  Episcopacy,  as  to  its  mode  of  legislation. 
Nor  can  it  in  regard  to  the  spirit  which  it  fosters  in  its  ad- 
herents. If  proof  of  this  be  called  for,  we  may  point  to 
the  illustrious  father  of  our  country.  He  was  an  Episco- 
palian, and  in  his  sober,  rational  views  of  liberty — of  lib- 
erty wath  order,  there  is  exhibited  the  spirit  that  the  eccle- 
siastical system  under  which  he  was  trained  is  calculated  to 
beget.  Few  if  any  religious  systems  allow  of  as  much 
Christian  freedom  as  the  Episcopal,  and  none  in  the  same 
degree  with  so  little  danger.  The  conservative  influence 
which  is  exerted  by  the  order  that  every  where  obtains  in 
it,  insensibly  checks  those  tendencies  to  undue  excitement 
and  extravagance  from  which, ^  more  than  any  thing  else, 
we  have  reason  to  apprehend  danger  to  our  free  institutions. 
So  that  instead  of  being  hostile  to  those  institutions.  Epis- 
copacy is  superlatively  best  suited  to  them.  For  while  its 
legislation  is  conducted  on  similar  principles  to  those  which 
govern  in  the  enactment  of  our  civil  laws,  and  thus  fosters 
the  spirit  of  liberty,  it  at  the  same  time  operates  to  produce 
in  the  minds  of  men  that  love  of  order,  that  respect  for  law, 
and  that  regard  for  those  in  authority  which  has  kept  the 
Church  itself  from  being  agitated  and  torn  by  questions  that 
have  rent  other  ecclesiastical  bodies,  and  which  is  needed 
to  ensure  lasting  unity,  peace,  and  prosperity  to  our  country. 

6.  Is  it  objected  that  Episcopacy  is  exclusive — that  it 
"would  break  down  every  thing  else,  and  draw  all  others  to 
its  side? 

As  to  its  exclusiveness,  it  may  be  answered,  it  is  a  charac- 
teristic which  is  in  no  way  discreditable  to  it.  Is  not  Chris- 
tianity itself  exclusive — exclusive  with  respect  to  all  other 
religions,  and  with  respect  to  the  way  in  which  its  own  ben- 
efits shall  be  enjoyed?  Under  its  every  aspect  it  is  mani- 
festly so — "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  The 
exclusiveness  of  Episcopacy,  then,  instead  of  being  against 
it,  makes  for  it.  For,  in  this  respect,  it  obviously  chimes 
in  with  the  other  parts  of  the  Gospel  system,  and  appears 
to  be,  as  it  doubtless  is,  a  part  of  the  divine  arrangement. 

That  it  aims  to  break  down  every  other  form  of  ecclesias- 
tical organization,  is  a  charge  which  is  in  part  well  founded, 
and  in  part  groundless.  It  is  true  that  it  is  the  object  of 
the  friends  of  Episcopacy  to  secure  for  it  that  universal 
sway  to  which,   as  a  divine  institution,  it  is  entitled.     But 


67 

that,  to  effect  this,  they  wish  to  break  down  non-Episcopal 
societies  as  societies,  is  not  true.  Rather,  far  rather  would 
the  Episcopal  Clergy  desire  that  the  ministers  of  these 
societies  would  consent  to  seek,  from  the  hands  in  which 
Christ  has  lodged  it,  authority  to  dispense  the  Word  and 
Sacraments  to  the  people.  For  could  those  Clergy  but  see 
others  empowered  to  break  the  bread  of  life  among  us, 
gladly  would  they  leavp  this  ground  and  go  to  occupy  new- 
fields  in  this  and  foreign  lands. 

Episcopacy  ivould  draw  all  others  to  its  side,  but  not  in  a 
sectarian,  party  spirit  ;  not  with  the  view  to  outnumber  and 
triumph  over  non-Episcopalians;  it  would  draw  men  there 
simply  because  it  is  the  side  where  Christ  would  have  all 
his  followers  be — because  there  only,  can  be  found  the 
Ministry  which  he  has  appointed. 

7.  Is  it  objected  that  the  claim  of  Episcopacy  is  arrogant? 
It  is  hard  to  see  how  this  charge  can  be  made  to  lie  against 
it.  We  had  thought  that  arrogance  consisted,  not  in  high 
pretensions,  because  they  may  be  just,  but  in  assuming  more 
than  can  of  right  be  claimed.  And  surely  this  cannot  be 
said  of  Episcopacy.  Bishops,  in  asserting  themselves  to 
be  the  only  ordainers,  pretend  no  more  than  Christ  has  put 
them  in  possession  of  ;  and  their  Presbyters  and  Deacons, 
who  disclaim  all  right  and  power  to  set  apart  to  the  sacred 
office,  must  certainly  be  admitted  to  be  the  farthest  possible, 
in  this  respect,  from  the  crime  of  arrogance. 

8.  Is  it  objected  that  Episcopacy,  in  claiming  what  it 
does,  is  uncharitable  to  other  denominations  of  Christiansi 

Nothing  is  more  untrue.  That  it  denies  they  have  a 
scriptural  ministry,  is  certain;  nor  is  it  to  be  dissembled  that 
it  holds  towards  them  the  language  of  reproof  for  continu- 
ing separated  from  such  a  ministry.  Plainly  does  it  declare 
that  they  are  in  the  wrong.  But  may  not  all  this  be  done  in 
perfect  consistency  with  the  exercise  of  charity?  Surely 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  "  speaking  the  truth  in  love," 
though  it  be  unpleasant  truth.  And  since  it  is  true  that 
non-Episcopalians  are  without  a  scriptural  ministry,  and  are 
doing  wrong  in  remaining  separated  from  it,  there  can  be 
no  uncharitableness  in  regarding  them  as  thus  situated,  nor 
in  plainly  telling  them  they  are  in  error,  if  it  be  done  in  a 
good  and  Christian  spirit. 

It  is  vain  to  plead  that  all  men  cannot  think  alike.  This 
can  never  be  allowed  as  an  excuse  for  remaining  in  error. 
To  allow  that  it  may,  w^ould  be  to  admit  that  the  Jew,  the 
Mohammedan,  and  heathen  should  be  suffered  to  continue 
unmolested  in  their  present  condition.     While  shades  of 


(difference  in  opinion  will  invariably  prevail,  all  men  are 
able,  through  grace,  to  think  enough  alike  to  embrace 
whatever  is  clearly  connected  with  Christianity.  And  as 
Episcopacy  has  been  showm  to  be  a  part  of  that  system,  it 
must  be  concluded  that  all  can  be  united  in  it. 

9.  Is  it  objected  that  a  connection  wnth  the  Episcopal 
ministry,  though  well  enough,  is  not  important? 

This  is  an  erroneous  opinion.  Certainly  that  connection, 
in  its  discernible  tendency  to  preserve  among  bodies  of 
Christians  a  correct  faith,  is  not  unimportant.  That  it  does 
this  is  quite  obvious.  Wherever  in  Protestant  Christendom 
Episcopacy  prevails,  there  is  found  a  holding  fast  of  Chris- 
tian verity;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  where  there  has  been  a 
rejection  of  the  Apostolic  model  of  the  ministry,  its  general 
attendant  has  been  a  w^oful  defection  from  the  doctrines  of 
the  Cross.  In  proof  of  this,  we  may  point  to  the  Ration- 
alism, Socinianism,  and  Unitarianism  which  have  grown  out 
of  non-Episcopal  Churches  in  Germany,  England,  and  the 
United  States.  To  show  the  extent  of  this,  it  is  enough  to 
say,  that  within  five  years  past,  it  has  been  stated,  on  dis- 
senting authority,  that  out  of  258  Presbyterian  chapels  in 
England,  which  is  the  whole  number,  235  w^ere  actually 
Unitarian.  Such  is  not  the  state  of  things  in  the  Episcopal 
Church  Reformed.  Hence  it  seems  that  a  departure  from 
the  order  which  God  has  established  in  his  house  in  regard 
to  the  Ministry,  leads,  if  not  directly,  yet  ultimately,  to 
error  in  doctrine.*  It  is  not  unimportant,  then,  whether 
Episcopacy  be  embraced  by  Christians  as  a  body.  Nor  is  it 
a  matter  of  so  little  consequence  as  many  think,  whether  it 
is  practically  received  by  individuals.  Does  it  make  no 
difference  whether  we  are  receiving  the  ordinances  of  the 
Gospel  from  those  whom  Christ  has  authorized  to  dispense 
them,  or  from  such  as  have  no  warrant,  or  at  best,  a  doubt- 
ful one,  to  minister  in  sacred  things  ?  Should  we  not  fear 
to  despise,  or  even  neglect  the  appointed  way  ?  It  is  not 
enough  to  reply,  others  have  piety.  This  is  well;  it  is  what 
all  should  have.  But,  be  it  remembered  that  of  itself,  piety 
can  authorize  no  one  to  act  officially  for  Christ.  Before 
any  one  can  be  warranted  to  act  in  a  ministerial  capacity  in 
sacred  things,  he  must  have  a  commission.  And  since,  by 
God's  arrangement,  it  is  received  but  from  one  source — the 


•  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  corruptions  of  the  Romish  Church  are  in 
no  small  degree  traceable  to  this  cause.  By  creating  a  Pope,  the)'  have  abused 
)the  ministry,  and  in  their  present  errors  they  are,  not  unlikely,  reaping  the  fruila 
of  that  abuse. 


Bishops  ;  since  none  but  tlie  Episcopal  ministry  ran  be  pes-* 
sessed  of  it,  a  connection  with  that  ministry  instead  of  being 
a  thing  of  little  or  no  consequence,  must  be  acknowledged 
to  be  most  important. 

How,  then,  can  any  one  justify  himself  in  continuing  sep- 
arated from  it  1  They  who  were  the  first  to  abandon  Epis- 
copacy, claimed  to  be  without  it,  because  they  could  not 
obtain  it.  But  this  plea  cannot  be  made  among  us  ;  we 
have  the  Episcopacy,  And  when  we  think  how  unobjec- 
tionable we  have  found  it  to  be,  and  how  important  it  is,  in 
its  every  aspect,  does  not  the  most  backward  feel  like  em- 
bracing it?  Nay,  when  it  is  considered  that  we  have  seen 
this  proved  to  be  God's  only  Ministry,  can  it  be  felt  to  be 
safe  to  continue  an  ecclesiastical  connection  elswhere? 
Ought  you  not  to  fear  to  withhold  yourself  from  that  Min- 
istry? Be  it  ever  remembered,  as  a  solemn  truth,  that  this 
question  about  the  Ministry  is  a  question  of  practical  religion. 


APPENDIX. 


SUCCESSION  OF  BISHOPS. 


1  Linus, 

2  Clement  I, 

3  Anacletus,  . 

4  Evaristus,    . 

5  Alexander  I, 

6  Sixtus  I, 

7  Telesphorus, 

8  Higynus, 

9  Pius  I, 

10  Anicetus,     . 

11  Soter, 

12  Eleutherus, 

13  Victor  I,      . 

14  Zephrinus, 

15  Calixtus  I, 

16  Urban  I, 

17  Pontianus, 

18  Anterus, 

19  Fabian, 

20  Cornelius, 

21  Lucius, 

22  Stephen  I, 

23  Sixtus  II, 

24  Dionysius, 

25  Felix  I,       . 

26  Eutychianus, 

27  Caius, 

28  Marcellinus, 

29  Marcellus  I, 

30  Eusebius, 

31  Melchiades, 

32  Silvester  I, 

33  Mark, 

34  Julius  I, 

35  LiberuSj 

36  Felix  II,      . 

37  Damasus  I, 

38  Siricius, 


D. 


67 
91 
101 
110 
119 
130 
140 
152 
156 
165 
173 
177 
192 
201 
219 
224 
231 
235 
236 
251 
253 
255 
257 
258 
270 
275 
283 
396 
304 
309 
311 
314 
336 
336 
352 
355 
367 
385 


39  Anastasius  I,   A. 

40  Innocent  I, 

41  Zosimus, 

42  Boniface  I, 

43  Celestine, 

44  Sixtus  III, 

45  Leo  I, 

46  Hilary, 

47  Simplicius, 

48  Felix  III, 

49  Gelasius  I, 

50  Anastasius  II, 

51  Symmachus, 

52  Hormisdas, 

53  John  I, 

54  Felix  IV,    . 

55  Boniface, 

56  John  II,       . 

57  Agapetus  I, 

58  Silverius, 

59  Virgilius, 

60  Pelagius  I, 

61  John  III, 

62  Benedict  I, 

63  Pelagius  II, 

64  Gregory  I, 

65  Augustine, 

66  Laurence, 

67  Mellitus,      . 

68  Justus, 

69  Honorius, 

70  Adeodatus, 

71  Theodore, 

72  Birthwald, 

73  Tatwine,      . 

74  Nothelm, 

75  Cuthbert, 

76  Bregwin, 


D.  398 
402 
417 
418 
423 
432 
440 
461 
467 
483 
492 
496 
498 
514 
253 
526 
529 
532 
535 
536 
540 
555 
559 
573 
577 
590 
597 
604 
619 
624 
634 
654 
668 
693 
732 
735 
742 
759 


71 


/ 


114  Walter  Raynold,  1313 

115  Simon  Mecham,  1327 

116  John  Stratford,  1333 

117  Thos.  Bradwardine,1349 

118  Simon  Islip,         .  1349 

119  Simon  Langham,  1366 

120  William  Wittlesey,  1368 

121  Simon  Sudbury,  1375 

122  William  Courtney,  1381 

123  Thomas  Arundel  1390 

124  Henry  Chichley,  1414 

125  John  Stratford,  1443 

126  Joseph  Kemp,  1452 

127  Thomas  Boucher,  1454 

128  John  Morton,  1487 

129  Henry  Dean,  1501 

130  William  Warham,  1503 

131  Thomas  Cranmer,  1531 

132  Reginald  Pole,  1555 

133  Matthew  Parker,  1559 

134  Edmund  Grindal,  1575 

135  John  Whitgift,  1583 

136  Richard  Bancroft,  1604 

137  George  Abbot,  1610 

138  William  Laud,  1633 

139  William  Juxon,  1660 

140  Gilbert  Sheldon,  1663 

141  William  Sancroft,  1667 

142  John  Tillotson,  1691 

143  Thomas  Jenison,  1694 

144  William  Wake,  1716 

145  John  Potter,  1737 

146  Thomas  Herring,  1743 

147  Thomas  Seeker,  1758 

148  F.  Cornwallis,  1768 

149  John  Moore,  1783 

150  William  White,  1787 

151  A.  V.  Griswold,  1811 


Here,  then,  we  have  a  succession  of  Bishops  from  the 
Apostles  to  the  present  day,  and  we  may  challenge  all  our 
opponents  to  show,  that  any  one  of  the  above  list  obtained 
their  office,  otherwise  than  by  a  regular  consecration  of 
other  Bishops.  Indeed,  any  one  who  will  carefully  and 
impartially  examine  the  history  of  the  Church,  must  satisfy 


77  Lambert,           A.  E 

>.  763 

78  Athelard, 

793 

79  Wulfred,      . 

807 

80  Theolgild, 

830 

81  Ceolnoth, 

830 

82  Athelred,     . 

871 

83  Phlegmund, 

891 

84  Athelm, 

915 

85  Wulfelm, 

924 

$6  Odo  Severus, 

934 

87  Dunstan,     . 

959 

88  Ethelgar, 

988 

89  Siric, 

989 

90  Aluricius, 

989 

91  Elphege,     . 

1006 

92  Living, 

1013 

93  Agelnoth, 

1020 

94  Edsine,  or  Eadsius^ 

1038 

95  RobertGemitcencis 

,1050 

96  Stigand,       . 

1052 

97  Lanfranc,    . 

1070 

98  Anselm, 

1093 

99  Rodulph,     . 

1114 

100  W.  Corboil, 

1122 

101  Theobald, 

1138 

102  T.  Becket, 

1162 

103  Richard,      . 

1171 

104  Baldwin,      . 

1184 

105  Reginald  Fitz-Joce 

- 

lain, 

1191 

106  Hubert  Walter, 

1193 

107  Stephen  Langton, 

1207 

108  Richard    Wethers- 

field, 

1229 

109  Edmund,     . 

1234 

110  Boniface, 

1245 

111  Robert  Kilwarby, 

1272 

112  John  Peckham, 

1278 

113  Rob.  Winchelsey, 

1294 

72 

himself,  that  there  is  rio  break  in  this  succession.  Conse- 
quently, every  minister  in  the  Episcopal  Church  is  able  to 
show,  from  whom,  and  through  what  channel  he  has  receiv- 
ed his  authority  to  minister  in  the  Church.  He  can  show 
through  whom  his  title  to  office  has  come,  and  can  show 
beyond  all  doubt,  the  right  of  each  of  his  predecessors  to 
his  office. 


ErratI. — Owing  to  (he  aulbor's  residence  at  a  distalice  from  (he  (ilaCe  of 
publication,  some  errors  have  escaped  notice.  The  reader  is  requested  to  msJke 
the  following  corrections : 

p.  10,  line  6,  insert  "  and  which,"  before  "  holds." 

p.  25,  la?t  line,  insert  "  and,"  after  "  Church." 

ppi  43  and  44,  Oeonmenius,  for  Orcumeniu3. 


N 


4978  T%  41 1 

12-20-95  32180" 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01167  5248 


DATE  DUE 


H.GHSM.^'*^^^^ 


